News, ideas & inspiration from industry leaders
It really is rocket science
May 31, 2025, Dr. Emily Weiss
Many of those innovative and impactful programs and processes that helped create a sea change in sheltering are no longer in use. What gives?
For those of us who have been in the field for a while, who were able to observe, and be a part, of the sea change that happened in sheltering, we are empathetic and concerned about some of the current challenges.
Since the early 90’s, animal sheltering has seen incredible positive growth. The field leaned into science, data, marketing, and innovation. As a result, adopting shelter animals became a norm; welfare inside and outside the shelter walls improved; a positive client experience became an important goal; disease decreased; euthanasia plummeted, and intake declined. This graph from the open access peer-reviewed manuscript by Rowen & Kartal is a great visual of the euthanasia decline.
So many great programs were developed or further refined during that time. From S/N access and housing to matching programs, from marketing campaigns focused on adoption to professional certifications like The Association’s CAWA program… and goodness – a veterinarian board specialty of Shelter Medicine! Myths that were getting in the way of getting pets home, or keeping them home, were busted, and data drove programming. Leaders followed the numbers to more lifesaving.
There was an understanding that a movement to eliminate unnecessary euthanasia meant that what was necessary in one community could be unnecessary in another community with different resources. And out of this grew large-scale transport, along with the emergence of targeted granting programs to support communities.
Yet over the past couple of years, there has been a growing level of stress in and for shelter staff, and a growing length of stay occurring in some shelters. This means that even though there may not be more animals coming into the shelter, there are more animals in the shelter at any one time. And this is leading many to believe that there are an overwhelming number of animals in need of help, which leaves many feeling as if they do not have the tools to tackle it.
So (crap, I hate that I am about to sound like the old fart – but here we go), I have been chatting with many of you in the field about what is happening, including several of my colleagues who came up in the field when those amazing positive changes were happening. As we look into what is occurring now, it appears that many of those innovative and impactful – and now basic – programs and processes are no longer in use. The phrase I have heard from almost every one of them (including me) is – “It is not rocket science.” Well, it just dawned on me… it actually is rocket science.
Here is the thing about rocket science. It is a field that succeeds because of the data. Rocket scientists are left with no other option than to analyze, test, iterate, test, iterate, believe… launch. While there are always new destinations and new lofty goals, the physics, the algorithms, the formulas underlie it all and drive that change forward.
As in rocket science, there are proven formulas in sheltering. Formulas for successful adoptions, for successful return to owner programs, for reducing length of stay, for making appropriate and humane euthanasia decisions, for capacity for care, and more.
When faced with a shelter full of animals, the science will get you to solutions. In the same way that wrapping your head around how those rockets propel a human to space starts with the data, understanding what is impacting the number of animals in your care and their welfare starts with the data as well. When you have a picture of intake, length of stay, and outcomes, you can then choose a science-based solution to impact change.
There will always be those who don’t believe rockets ever made it to the moon, they can stay rooted… For the rest of us – we have lifesaving to do. So let’s build a rocket and get to done!
Note: I know some of you are aware of the science, but are managing a passionate and sometimes venomous minority in your community who do not have a full window into the power of the programming that has been developed, and are instead pushing resources away from lifesaving. It can be hard to reason above the din.
Lean on your colleagues in other communities that have tackled the same. And engage with CAWA professionals, scientists and shelter medicine veterinarians who can help support you and provide the needed information to city councils and the like.
If you have questions about programs or your data, please share them here, and both Dr. Weiss and The Association’s members can help guide you to a data-driven pathway.
About Dr. Emily Weiss
As an Applied Animal Behaviorist, Dr. Weiss has worked with species as varied as lions, orangutans, elephants and Komodo dragons, as well dogs, cats and horses. She is a nationally recognized speaker, and has published extensively on topics related to applied animal behavior and human-animal interactions. She served as the ASPCA's VP. of Research & Development, overseeing groundbreaking research related to the animal sheltering field and developing assessment tools for shelter animals. Before that she created training programs to improve husbandry and decrease stress for zoo animals.
More recently Dr. Weiss led ASPCA's Equine Welfare efforts, with a focus on increasing the rehoming of horses, the development of effective safety net programming and effective law enforcement response to cruelty and neglect.
In all of her work, two central questions have driven her approach: “Why?” and “How do you know?” These questions guide a consistent creative and scientific approach to the work of improving welfare.
Emily recently sunsetted her successful career at the ASPCA and will be tackling a few select projects where her knowledge, skills and talent can make a significant impact for animals.
Leave a Reply
Search The Association Blog
Contribute to The Blog
Another great article by Dr. Weiss! I recently saw this written by Seth Godin, and it struck me that we are collecting data, lots of it, but if we aren’t using it to move us forward, it’s pretty worthless. I think data is wonderful, but sometimes we don’t know what to do with it or misunderstand the resulting information.
“Data becomes information when at least one of two related things are true:
We learn something for next time.
We make different decisions or take new actions.
If you’re not getting one of these things, then the data is simply noise. A distraction that wastes our time and confuses us.”
What a great quote! And it can be tough to know what data to use, or how to use it! Would a blog about what indicators to focus on high level and where to dig in to get to the ‘why’ be helpful?
One of my favorite quotes: Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? TS Eliot
Dr. Weiss: I’ve long admired your contributions to animal sheltering, especially your advocacy for using data to understand what’s working—and what’s not.
Hearing that there is an apparent trend of moving away from the programs and processes that have significantly improved animal sheltering over the past couple of decades both surprises and saddens me.
Professionally, I entered the field in 2012, but I vividly recall the “old ways” from my time as a community rescuer. Back then, resources for helping stray cats and dogs were scarce. I often faced the heartbreaking decision of either leaving a stray where it was, offering minimal care, or taking it to a shelter where euthanasia was almost certain.
Being part of the transformative changes since then has been incredibly rewarding. I’ve had the privilege of working with an organization that transitioned from an outdated shelter to a modern, animal-centric facility. We’ve embraced high-volume, low-cost spay/neuter and vaccination clinics, and we’ve created spaces for education and training. Together, we’ve learned the value of open adoptions, supporting pet retention, and focusing on enrichment to better prepare animals for adoption.
After reading your article, I’m left wondering why. Why is there a decline in the use of these effective programs and processes? Is it a matter of data not being collected or reported? Or is it the influence of the “passionate and sometimes venomous minority” you mentioned—who sometimes seem like the majority—that’s discouraging staff and hindering the application of these programs? I’d greatly appreciate your insights on this matter.
Thank you for your inspiring work and for being a guiding light for those of us striving to improve the lives of animals and the people who care for them.
Sarah – thank you for your kind words – AND for asking one of my favorite questions – “Why”
My hypothesis (or what it is worth) as to why there is a decline is that it is due to a few things –
1. For all the horrible things covid brought, it brought relief in shelters. Fewer animals in and lots of animals adopted. Urgency dropped, stress inside the shelter dropped while support increased, but stress outside the shelter was very high. The lack of urgency led to some skipped steps and dropped processes.
2. Staffing challenges across almost all sectors impacted shelters and there was so much turn over that there was a lack of legacy within shelters – For many it seemed that there were problems without solutions – simply because there was not knowledge of the solutions
3. That loud minority not only influenced within a shelter but also in city and municipal entities – shifting funds and shifting focus away from the data to raw emotion.
I am curious as to what others think are the drivers – and what we can do to bring the programming back
I understand the point you are trying to make but I don’t necessarily agree with you. While maybe some communities have strayed away from some programs, what I have seen and what many of my contacts have seen is a change in the community. Shelters are being overloaded with post-pandemic dogs. Dogs that due to the pandemic were not socialized with people or other animals. You couple that with evictions going up, lack of pet inclusive housing, and economic factors and you have shelters trying to find homes for dogs who don’t like other dogs who are fearful of new people, and a drop in people searching for animals due to housing or finances and LOS is going to increase. I haven’t even mentioned the vet crises and rising cost of vet care. You blog focused on what shelters are no longer doing causing the issue and the shelters I work with are still doing all of the thing’s shelters have been doing for a while. The problem is the situation has changed and currently many shelters have not figured out new tools to deal with the new situation.
I hear you John. And thank you for raising your concerns. You are right – there are population shifts, staffing challenges and more that are making sheltering difficult. The programs and processes I suggest were built at a time when there were some similar challenges. While there are new challenges and opportunities for innovation, focusing on data driven proven programming can result in great positive changes. For example, safe under socialized dogs are fantastic dogs for the Adoption Ambassador program – getting them out of the shelter where they do not show well and are subjected to higher stress and into homes of fosters motivated to find your dogs homes. You raise the housing issue – which is indeed a huge risk in some communities. There have been some good innovative programs in which the shelter guarantees the pet – eliminating many of the concerns for landlords.
I am not suggesting every risk has been addressed – but that there are processes and programs that can make a difference even in the current landscape.
Don’t know if you had considered using foster one week two or month option to start …..first before adoption?
Having worked in this industry from the municipal side for more than 25 years the differences today from when I started are almost unbelievable. From the new diversity of the workforce to the focus on the human-animal bond rather than simply the animal are amazing changes. Myths held back this business for far too long, but we haven’t addressed all of the myths that exist. Data has been a great tool to compare theoretical mythology with the reality around us. Continuing to expand what data we collect and review will help us continue to break down myths and barriers.
We’ve achieved a tremendous amount of positive change, but the fact that some organizations have taken their foot off the petal when it comes to change and improvement will ultimately hurt us all if we don’t set our egos aside to continue to build from positives others have implemented. While saving 90% was a great idea to put a concrete target in place, true commitment to lifesaving is a cultural shift that includes being non-judgmental and understanding that perfection is the enemy of maximum lifesaving opportunities.
Our community in the Tampa Bay region has experienced double-digit population growth for some time and it has resulted in more pets entering our shelter even with active retention and diversion programs keeping thousands of pet out of the shelter annually. But while others have seen reduction in overall intake and declining save rates, we have seen increased intake and increased lifesaving rates in the mid-90%s for a municipal shelter. Shelters have a huge burden as we strive to save the marginal animals above 95% – they are expensive and resource demanding to make good adoption candidates. Unfortunately rescues are not economically equipped to invest somethings thousands of dollars to save each pet and therefore they are not available to remove these pets from the shelter – that is one reason length of stay has increased so dramatically. We have plenty of potential adopters with 5-10 people leaving without pets to every one that adopts because we don’t have what they are looking for. With well over 10,000 successful adoptions a year we have shown that the demand is out there if we present pets with their best paw forward.
The sea change continues but the ebb -and-flow of that change can be difficult as we continue to experience things we have never encountered. Not losing the progress we made is the first step. Then challenging ourselves to continue to achieve as part of our very culture is essential. The dramatic changes in our business has translated into sea change in the people we choose to work for us in our mission. Tough decisions remain on retention or restaffing – especially in the government arena. But without a solid cultural shift our gains will not endure.
We see some of our colleagues claiming no-kill success when they are not doing all they can to save lives, but they find ways to justify deaths as necessary rather than finding ways to achieve success. Threats to public safety and true euthanasia to end suffering are the only deaths that should happen in a shelter. Owner-requested euthanasia policies are among the worst killers of savable pets that can live out a good life with a little extra effort by the shelter team. Rethinking our missions and services is something that should change continually because our society changes continually.
Keep you head up. Continue to strive to save that one more pet. And always challenge the status quo for lives that are lost. Together this sea change can continue to bring more successes in the human-animal bond.
While I will live and die by the adage, “In God we trust, all others bring data,” I think there is an unrecognized (or unspoken) reality. Animal welfare grew into a multi-billion dollar industry built on delivering dramatic successes in large part due to a deplorable base line and massive changes OUTSIDE the control or influence of our industry. We are now in a petroleum world wondering why our whale oil isn’t selling and why the “Save the Whales” crowd is yelling at us. Beyond the clear and compelling numbers you share, our market increasingly does not align with the “product” we have to sell- pets that are increasingly, if not overwhelmingly, “problematic” placements, and animals in which our increasingly informed consumers simply aren’t interested. We spent years telling people to get the right companion for them. Now we tell them they should fall in love with the one we put in front of them. Imagine if we did that with any other choice- elections excluded. You’re gay? Sorry, our dating site only has straight people right now. How about one of them? You want a Mercedes? Sorry, we only have a used Dodge Neon and you’re a monster for not wanting it. I suppose I’ll also live and die by tortured metaphor.