There is a difference between using data to simply track shelter populations and using data to improve lifesaving. One involves simply looking at numbers. The other involves analyzing those numbers, using them to determine the gaps in shelter programming, and taking actions to close those gaps. The former is more passive while the latter is proactive. Unfortunately, too many shelters are so strained for resources that the luxury of collecting and analyzing this data is alien to them, resulting in missed opportunities.
A lifesaving gap is the difference between the current life saving rate and the target rate of 90 percent or above. (The lifesaving rate is the percentage of animal intakes that result in live releases in the form of transfers to other shelters and/or adoptions. The goal should be that 90 percent or more of all companion animals that enter the shelter leave the shelter alive.) Once that gap is measured, the next steps should be to use data to determine actions to close that gap.
Data is critical to this planning, but the data must be detailed to identify where the lifesaving vulnerabilities lay. For example, the data is not “one size fits all.” It’s important to drill down to other identifiers such as species, ages, and gender. In addition, data collection and analysis must expand to other measures such as the length of stay at the shelter, the types and adequacies of kennels and cages being used for housing (particularly important for less common species such as reptiles and birds), number of active foster homes, length of stay in foster homes, number of animals who have become ill at the shelter, number of adoptions, number of transfers, number of spays and neuters, etc.
Geographic data is also critical to determine the incidence rates in local neighborhoods of animal cruelty complaints, stray animals, lost animals, intakes, spay/neuter clientele, etc. This data helps to deploy limited resources to the areas with the most needs. Does the shelter need more vet techs, field officers, care officers, foster homes? Is more staff and volunteer training needed? Does the spay/neuter program need upgrading? Are adoption criteria too rigid? There are many questions.
Fundamentally, data is not simply a snapshot; it is a tool that is useful for strategic planning. It helps to not only close the lifesaving gap, but also to fulfill the obligations of animal services to serve all the different needs of the different communities in a jurisdiction. Collecting the data without analyzing it is a lost opportunity. Lifesaving gaps will not close on their own.