A further point to be emphasized is that PCR is a statistic meant to measure whole community performance, not just the performance of individual shelters. In communities with only one open admission shelter, normally a taxpayer-supported animal control agency, this is easily done by applying PCR to just that one shelter's statistics. With fewer & fewer non-governmental shelters operating on an open admission basis, calculating PCR is much easier than it used to be, whereas back when I was calculating PCR, decades ago, I sometimes had to gather the data from as many as nine different organizations to get an accurate PCR for a big city. But there is still a further complication. Very few urban ecologies are confined to a single political jurisdiction. To really understand what is happening in Los Angeles city, for instance, going a statistical step farther than anyone ever has, it is also necessary to incorporate the data from Los Angeles county and probably half a dozen suburbs, and then geographically subdivide the data by types of habitat, including human population factors such as income level, ethnicity, and housing types. What would emerge from this is that certain types of neighborhood are more likely to harbor feral cats; certain types are more likely to harbor street dogs; certain types are more likely to have loose pit bulls & dog attacks. Effective animal population control programs need to be developed to target whatever the problem is in each particular neighborhood, i.e. habitat type. Large-scale, centralized, city-or-countywide programs often fail because the s/n programs are not where they need to be, & not oriented toward the species and ethnic or income levels they need to target. For instance, a low-cost or free s/n facility operating only in English and serving mostly "cat ladies" ten miles away from the barrio may do wonders in reducing feral cat abundance in the particular suburb where it operates; but to reduce barrio dog attacks, a low-cost or free s/n clinic needs to operate in Spanish, in the barrio, with facilities designed to accommodate pit bulls. What that specifically means is separate entrances & exits so that dogs on leashes are not passing dogs in narrow doorways and corridors. Cats can be safely carried past each other in plastic crates, but big dogs have to be able to get from point to point on their own four feet, with a minimum of stimulation in a situation where they are already going to be fearful and reactive. PCR can help to diagnose and address such situations, whereas standard intake & exit statistics tend to homogenize animal care & control problems into an amorphous mass, losing the nuances of habitat that must be taken into account to design successful responses. I used to argue that the animal care & control system of a no-kill future should consist of decentralized neighborhood s/n clinics with lost-and-found animal receiving areas & adoption space in abandoned former gas stations, which were then abundant and very easily repurposed into mini-shelters & clinics. This was easily done, & several communities actually did it, but largely for political reasons most communities building new shelters opted for building "cathedrals" instead of "community churches," spending astronomical amounts of money on bigger, more attractive facilities, without ever getting ballpark close to solving their real-life animal care & control problems.
Thanks, Merritt and Beth! That’s an excellent and crucial point about PCR reflecting whole-community performance rather than just individual shelters. Your insights into the nuances of urban ecologies and targeted solutions are especially compelling—one-size-fits-all approaches simply don’t work. I appreciate the historical perspective on PCR calculations and the practical considerations for effective spay/neuter programs. The idea of decentralized, neighborhood-focused solutions remains as relevant as ever. Thanks for sharing your expertise!
Great question, Augusta! One way to factor in community specifics is to use weighted PCR calculations that adjust for key demographic variables. Start by gathering data on income levels, housing density, and pet ownership rates from sources like the U.S. Census, local housing authorities, and pet ownership surveys. Then, compare your shelter’s PCR to communities with similar profiles rather than broad regional or national averages.
You can also create subcategories within your own community—breaking PCR down by zip code, neighborhood type, or socioeconomic factors. This helps identify areas where targeted spay/neuter programs, outreach, or adoption efforts are most needed.
Good strategy idea! For those of us passionate in this space it is emotional. However, I think emotion can be easily tuned out by needed allies. A good standardized metric-driven approach could help the dialogue and lead to positive outcomes. Thank you for the article!
A further point to be emphasized is that PCR is a statistic meant to measure whole community performance, not just the performance of individual shelters. In communities with only one open admission shelter, normally a taxpayer-supported animal control agency, this is easily done by applying PCR to just that one shelter's statistics. With fewer & fewer non-governmental shelters operating on an open admission basis, calculating PCR is much easier than it used to be, whereas back when I was calculating PCR, decades ago, I sometimes had to gather the data from as many as nine different organizations to get an accurate PCR for a big city. But there is still a further complication. Very few urban ecologies are confined to a single political jurisdiction. To really understand what is happening in Los Angeles city, for instance, going a statistical step farther than anyone ever has, it is also necessary to incorporate the data from Los Angeles county and probably half a dozen suburbs, and then geographically subdivide the data by types of habitat, including human population factors such as income level, ethnicity, and housing types. What would emerge from this is that certain types of neighborhood are more likely to harbor feral cats; certain types are more likely to harbor street dogs; certain types are more likely to have loose pit bulls & dog attacks. Effective animal population control programs need to be developed to target whatever the problem is in each particular neighborhood, i.e. habitat type. Large-scale, centralized, city-or-countywide programs often fail because the s/n programs are not where they need to be, & not oriented toward the species and ethnic or income levels they need to target. For instance, a low-cost or free s/n facility operating only in English and serving mostly "cat ladies" ten miles away from the barrio may do wonders in reducing feral cat abundance in the particular suburb where it operates; but to reduce barrio dog attacks, a low-cost or free s/n clinic needs to operate in Spanish, in the barrio, with facilities designed to accommodate pit bulls. What that specifically means is separate entrances & exits so that dogs on leashes are not passing dogs in narrow doorways and corridors. Cats can be safely carried past each other in plastic crates, but big dogs have to be able to get from point to point on their own four feet, with a minimum of stimulation in a situation where they are already going to be fearful and reactive. PCR can help to diagnose and address such situations, whereas standard intake & exit statistics tend to homogenize animal care & control problems into an amorphous mass, losing the nuances of habitat that must be taken into account to design successful responses. I used to argue that the animal care & control system of a no-kill future should consist of decentralized neighborhood s/n clinics with lost-and-found animal receiving areas & adoption space in abandoned former gas stations, which were then abundant and very easily repurposed into mini-shelters & clinics. This was easily done, & several communities actually did it, but largely for political reasons most communities building new shelters opted for building "cathedrals" instead of "community churches," spending astronomical amounts of money on bigger, more attractive facilities, without ever getting ballpark close to solving their real-life animal care & control problems.
Thanks, Merritt and Beth! That’s an excellent and crucial point about PCR reflecting whole-community performance rather than just individual shelters. Your insights into the nuances of urban ecologies and targeted solutions are especially compelling—one-size-fits-all approaches simply don’t work. I appreciate the historical perspective on PCR calculations and the practical considerations for effective spay/neuter programs. The idea of decentralized, neighborhood-focused solutions remains as relevant as ever. Thanks for sharing your expertise!
This is a different way to look at the numbers in shelters large and small! No way to "cook the books" in animal welfare.
Thanks, Melissa! That’s exactly the goal—providing a clear, honest metric that truly reflects a community’s progress. Glad you found it insightful!
Any idea how to factor in community specifics to make an accurate comparison to similar communities per your statement below?
Community-Specific Factors
Consider demographic influences such as income levels, housing density, and pet ownership rates, which can impact PCR values.
Adjust expectations accordingly, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach.
Great question, Augusta! One way to factor in community specifics is to use weighted PCR calculations that adjust for key demographic variables. Start by gathering data on income levels, housing density, and pet ownership rates from sources like the U.S. Census, local housing authorities, and pet ownership surveys. Then, compare your shelter’s PCR to communities with similar profiles rather than broad regional or national averages.
You can also create subcategories within your own community—breaking PCR down by zip code, neighborhood type, or socioeconomic factors. This helps identify areas where targeted spay/neuter programs, outreach, or adoption efforts are most needed.
Good strategy idea! For those of us passionate in this space it is emotional. However, I think emotion can be easily tuned out by needed allies. A good standardized metric-driven approach could help the dialogue and lead to positive outcomes. Thank you for the article!