In addition to help with the basic need of nutrition, pet owners may need support in addressing the fundamental need of shelter, both for themselves and for their companion animals. This need is often particularly acute for clients living in rental housing. In one study, only 53% of rental accommodations were pet friendly, and of those only 11% allowed large‐breed dogs. According to the same study, most landlords of pet‐friendly housing required an additional pet deposit, and average rents for pet‐friendly units were 20–30% higher per month than the overall average (Carlisle‐Frank et al. 2005). In another study, 44% of renting pet owners reported having been declined as renters based on pet ownership, and 82% rated the process of finding their current residence as “difficult” (Power 2017).
Shelters can reduce relinquishments by providing pet‐friendly housing support. This support can include accessible information on local renting laws to inform clients of their rights as tenants, both in private and public housing units (Huegel and MacMillan 2014). Support can also include a database of pet‐friendly rental units and/or landlords. However, because not all pet‐friendly units are advertised as such (Power 2017), developing a robust database requires the use of multiple research methods to identify landlords who allow companion animals and to clarify any restrictions on species and/or size. Such a database needs to be regularly updated.
Effective housing support programs reduce shelter relinquishment caused by housing restrictions while benefiting the pet and owner by maintaining the human‐animal bond. They can also provide much‐needed housing security for pet owners who choose not to relinquish their companion animal(s), despite restrictions. As with food bank programs, pet‐friendly housing support presents another opportunity for collaboration with key stakeholders in the community, including attorneys, housing‐assistance programs, and other social service programs. Such connections can serve as another avenue for shelters to build a framework of community collaboration and provide a comprehensive support network in the community.
The resources needed to implement housing support programs vary based on their scope. Simple programs may only provide access to information linked on the organization’s website. Housing support that includes the development and maintenance of a pet‐friendly housing database or advocacy for pet‐friendly housing in the community requires a modest additional resource investment by the organization.
5.3.1.3 Rehoming Advice and Resources
If rehoming a pet is unavoidable, direct owner‐to‐owner rehoming services can prevent relinquishment and the need for sheltering. In one study exploring the rehoming of cats and dogs, 37% of respondents who had rehomed a pet within the last five years had given their pet to a friend or family member as compared to 36% who rehomed by taking their pet to a shelter (Weiss et al. 2015). Eleven percent of respondents rehomed their pet directly to a person not previously known. These findings suggest that owners may be willing, and even prefer, to directly rehome their pets, thus avoiding relinquishment to a shelter altogether.
The shelter’s role in facilitating direct rehoming can include posting photos and information about available pets on an organization’s website, offering tips for successful rehoming, or referring clients to credible organizations that focus on direct owner‐to‐owner rehoming. Shelters typically do not process directly rehomed animals as admissions or placements; thus, appropriate disclosure is necessary to ensure that adopters are aware that the shelter’s normal evaluation processes have not taken place. However, direct rehoming allows the new adopter to receive information about the pet right from the previous owner. This information is potentially even more valuable than information learned about an animal’s behavior in the unfamiliar and stressful environment of the shelter.
A simplified process, with direct communication between a previous and future owner, is just one benefit of rehoming services. Additionally, the animal’s welfare is enhanced by avoiding relinquishment to the shelter and, ideally, entering a well‐counseled and well‐prepared home. The organization avoids a shelter admission through a system that requires minimal resources to establish.
Of course, direct home‐to‐home transfer of ownership is not ideal for every circumstance. In a survey of sheltering organizations, while 55% of organizations offered rehoming advice and resources, only 36% of those organizations considered them highly used (Russo et al. 2021). However, given the low resource investment and potential benefits, direct rehoming services are still a valuable safety net program for appropriate scenarios.
5.3.1.4 Lost‐and‐Found Programs
In 2018, approximately 50% of all canine and feline admissions into sheltering organizations were animals identified as stray or at‐large (Shelter Animals Count n.d.). Safety net programs that aim to prevent companion animals from becoming lost or facilitate reunification of stray pets with owners are vital to reducing shelter intakes and shelter length of stay.
Safety net programs targeting the stray pet population ideally include efforts to avoid the animal entering the shelter as a stray in the first place, including escape prevention initiatives. Some such programs aid in the construction of appropriate fencing for dogs. Others provide pet owners with information about how to secure gates and doors, how to train dogs to come when called, and how to recognize behavioral factors that may lead to escape attempts.
If a free‐roaming companion animal is found, proper identification can facilitate reunification with their owner in the field by the finder or animal control officer, avoiding intake into the shelter. In one study of cats and dogs adopted with a free collar and identification, 94% of those pets were still wearing identification at follow‐up approximately eight weeks later (Weiss et al. 2011). Reunification can be further facilitated by implanting microchips, which can increase reunification rates to twice those of unmicrochipped dogs and over 20 times those of unmicrochipped cats (Lord et al. 2009).
Shelters should maintain a thorough and up‐to‐date lost‐and‐found pet database and avoid unnecessary barriers to reunification such as heavy fees. An organization’s website and social media outlets are ideal platforms to post photos and descriptions of found animals. Coordination and sharing of lost‐and‐found information with other community sheltering organizations is vital to ensure a robust reunification system.
Both preventive and reunification efforts are of clear benefit to pets and clients by helping to avoid the animal running at‐large, impoundment, and the loss of the animal from the family. These efforts can also have a measurable effect within the community by reducing public safety and nuisance concerns related to free‐roaming companion animals. In addition, stray pet safety net programs can provide the initial opportunity for connection with the client to encourage use of other services, such as accessible veterinary and behavioral care. In particular, owners reunited with a lost pet may want resources to address factors that led to the animal’s loss, such as a reproductively intact status or an incomplete understanding of normal pet behavior.
Lost‐and‐found safety net programs are critical, and often required, operational components of organizations taking in stray animals. However, initiatives to prevent escape and facilitate reunification should also be considered by organizations not mandated to admit stray animals. Programs that go above and beyond the minimum lost‐and‐found standard of care, such as public microchipping clinics, can be an ideal opportunity for collaboration between private and municipal organizations in the community.
5.3.1.5 Temporary Sheltering
While safety net programs generally strive to keep animals in their homes, there are some circumstances in which temporary separation is necessary. Clients may be unable to care for their animals on a short‐term basis for a variety of reasons, including disasters, health concerns, or domestic violence. The importance of care for the family pet in these times of crisis is emphasized by the inclusion of provisions for pet‐directed response in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Bazan 2005) as well as by literature supporting the importance of companion animal safety in the decision‐making of those affected by domestic