Share This Article:

Effects of a Geographically-Targeted Intervention and Creative Outreach to Reduce Shelter Intake in Portland, Oregon

Abstract Full-Text HTML XML Download Download as PDF (Size:19420KB) PP. 165-174
DOI: 10.4236/ojas.2014.44021    3,697 Downloads   5,960 Views   Citations


Animal shelters focus much of their efforts towards decreasing euthanasia and one of the best ways to reduce euthanasia risk may be to prevent cats and dogs from ever entering a shelter. This study, conducted in Portland, Oregon, relied on the capabilities of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to precisely and scientifically identify an intervention area (with high shelter intake) and to identify control areas to compare the project results with community-wide trends. The intervention itself was designed and implemented in a comprehensive way by seeking numerous paths to engage pet owners and reduce shelter intake of cats and Pit Bull type dogs. This research highlighted the ability of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to significantly improve a community’s capacity to identify the most appropriate locations to focus resources and to closely track and measure interventions. Portland’s targeted intervention to reduce shelter intake utilized many outreach tools with varying levels of impact. The overall intervention yielded a reduction in intake of owned cats that was greater in total numbers and percentage than four control areas. Furthermore, this work identified a percentage of cat spay/neuter out of the estimated number of owned, originally intact cats within the intervention and control areas. As percentages approached or surpassed 20%, those areas realized larger intake reductions than control areas with lower percentages.

Cite this paper

Miller, G. , Slater, M. and Weiss, E. (2014) Effects of a Geographically-Targeted Intervention and Creative Outreach to Reduce Shelter Intake in Portland, Oregon. Open Journal of Animal Sciences, 4, 165-174. doi: 10.4236/ojas.2014.44021.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] ASPCA (2014) Pet Statistics.
[2] Kass, P., Johnson, K. and Weng, H. (2013) Evaluation of Animal Control Measures on Pet Demographics in Santa Clara County, California, 1993-2006. Peer Journal, 1, e18.
[3] Scarlett, J. and Johnston, N. (2012) Impact of a Subsidized Spay Neuter Clinic on Impoundments and Euthanasia in a Community Shelter and on Service and Complaint Calls to Animal Control. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 15, 53-69.
[4] White, S.C., Jefferson, E. and Levy, J.K. (2010) Impact of Publicly Sponsored Neutering Programs on Animal Population Dynamics in Animal Shelters: The New Hampshire and Austin Experiences. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 13, 191-212.
[5] Frank, J. and Carlisle-Frank, P. (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.
[6] Kortis, B. (2013) Why, How and Applying for PetSmart Charities Funding. Texas Unites for Animals Conference, Austin.
[7] Esri (2012) Esri Community Analyst: Reports Reference Guide.

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.