One potential solution is for animal shelters to serve as resource hubs for issues related to pets in rental housing, for instance, offering a behavior helpline for tenants and landlords (11). Community outreach programs such as the Humane Society of United States Pets for Life program could also offer subsidized services including behavioral support, dog walking, and pet sitting to families renting with pets. Any such programs should address systemic issues and help build local capacity in marginalized communities so as to not cause further vulnerability or dependency. Finally, there is a need for neighborhoods to build safe and supportive outdoor spaces for dogs. Investments in sidewalks can motivate dog walking (73, 74) and access to dog parks can foster increased social interaction (75, 76), both of which can help keep dogs exercised and mentally stimulated so that they do not show problem behaviors inside.

The Animal Addendum, for example, states that any single violation of the various rules as stated in the Animal Addendum or a single complaint by a neighbor can, at the sole discretion of the property manager, result in a written notice which will require a tenant to “immediately and permanently” remove the animal from the premises (61). Particularly disturbing is that the Animal Addendum allows a landlord to physically remove a pet when the tenant is not home following any rule violation or if a tenant allows their pet to “urinate or defecate where it is not allowed” (61).

First, our sample consisted of publicly available data that was pulled from a popular online rental listing aggregator (apartments.com) and therefore is not representative of all available rental listings.

Rather than thinking about pet-friendly housing as an economic opportunity, we should consider ways to preserve families through fair housing practices.

Large dogs are especially hard to house, despite a lack of evidence suggesting that larger dogs are more problematic when housed

nevertheless, it is essential to ask whether families renting with pets feel that they opted into the housing they are currently living in and can opt to stay or leave, rather than simply ending up there due to lack of choice.

This could imply that more expensive units already incorporate a “pet fee” into normal monthly rent,

Data were collected on January 19, 2021 via apartments.com by examining the available apartments in each target city

Given these challenges, an estimated 20% of owners have been found to keep their pets in rental units illegally (24), yet by doing so they could be faced with eviction, a bad referral, or other ramifications (12, 22, 23, 26, 27). The relationship between pet ownership and eviction has not yet been explored directly in the literature; however, research has shown that renters who face evictions are more likely to relocate to poorer and higher-crime neighborhoods compared to those who move voluntarily (28). Furthermore, evictions that go through the court system result in a public record with little mechanism for expungement, which can damage a tenant's credit record and thus harm their ability to find future rental housing (29). Depending on the market, tenants who stay longer in their units may be at risk of “renovictions”–where landlords evict a long-term tenant and renovate the property, raising rents beyond what the last occupant could have afforded (30).

More than ever, there exists a need to consider the potential inequalities in capacities to keep and care for pets, which could be improved through better understanding and addressing access to affordable rental housing for pet owners.

Moreover, there are no federal regulations limiting the amount of pet fees (i.e., upfront, one-time, non-refundable fee), pet deposits (i.e. upfront, refundable fee, provided there is no damage), or pet rents (i.e., monthly, recurring, non-refundable fee, regardless of damage) a landlord can charge, since rental laws vary by state (13). In Texas, the setting of this study, pet fees, pet rents, or pet deposits are all legal and there is no cap on their amount, although industry best practice is to make security deposits “reasonable” (14)

These dashboards shows data from the Shelter Animals Count Intake and Outcome Database (IOD) and Community Services Database (CSD) as reported by organizations in the United States and US Territories. Use the filters to discover data insights on national, state, and county levels, in addition to filtering by individual organizations. Dashboards are updated around the 15th of each month. Click the “View Detail” button for another view of the data. Click the black “info circle” at the top of each dashboard for definitions and more information.

for dogs destined to spend most of their lives in a shelter, being incorporated into a job program may be a way to make their conditions more bearable while fostering socially useful activities.

Such a screening approach can streamline the selection of many dogs that will be suitable for adoption or involvement in AAA/AAT programs without requiring a long training period. This would limit the costs sustained by the facilities that select dogs for AAA/AAT and train specially qualified staff for this purpose because dogs preventively screened with the Ethotest would quickly obtain certification.

6 dogs out of 23 were selected (26.1%) and all of them passed the Delta Society standard tests.

In any case, should the method developed not have provided the targeted results, it could have been safely used for the selection of adoptable dogs, thus enhancing the likelihood for those animals to find a new household as pets.

6 of which neutered

Dogs must have the right size, strength, and physical structure to perform expected tasks and this entails that they may not necessarily be suitable for all tasks.

Broad climatic and socioeconomic factors, as well as shelter-specific factors unrelated to C4C

While the observations reported here support the idea that these may be effective in various combinations with an emphasis more on one element or another, they do not confirm to what extent any single change can be effective as a standalone intervention.

However, each shelter also reported substantial improvements in cat health (CFHS, 2016). For instance, one shelter reported that their isolation area had been repurposed to uses other than housing sick cats; another stated that ‘cats are not coming in healthy and then getting sick’. This is consistent with the BC SPCA’s report of a dramatic decrease in isolation population (CFHS, 2012).

Recommendations to remove adoption barriers such as long applications, waiting periods and reference checks were made at all three shelters.

The probability of adoption increased at all three shelters, likely due to fewer choices for adopters, changes in the adoption process, and improved housing. Research suggests that limiting choices increase both the likelihood and ease of making a decision6

Table 2. Comparison of the cat monthly average shelter population at each shelter for the year before and after implementation of C4C and compared to their calculated optimal population.

High quality housing is a critical component of C4C, because poor quality housing has been linked to substantial health and welfare risks for shelter cats

Contrary to concerns of helping fewer cats with a reduced number of housing units, key outcome measures reportedly improved. Adoptions increased by 15% and the average length of stay (LOS) decreased from 40 to 22 days (personal communication/2016 Board Report) after C4C was implemented. The number of cats in isolation went from 16 (maximum capacity in the ward) on any given day to an estimated total of 10–15 for the entire year, suggesting that individual cat health also improved2 (CFHS, 2012).

The optimal daily population in an animal shelter meets the health and welfare requirements of all animals, while maintaining or improving on the shelter’s goals for adoption or other positive outcomes.

A low daily population, even if associated with improved animal welfare, would represent an unacceptable trade-off for many shelters if this resulted in failure to meet community needs, decreased adoptions or more euthanasia.1

During the study, dogs’ urine was collected in the morning before, during, and after fostering stays for cortisol: creatinine analysis

This study assessed the impacts of one- and two-night fostering programs on the urinary cortisol levels and health measures of dogs awaiting adoption.

animal shelters are utilizing short-term fostering programs to provide relief from the perceived stresses of kennel life

One of the greatest stressors for dogs living in animal shelters is social isolation

During the study, dogs’ urine was collected in the morning before, during, and after fostering stays for cortisol: creatinine analysis

any such reductions in cortisol are often lost when the dog returns to the kennel.

One of the greatest stressors for dogs living in animal shelters is social isolation