Policy Is Overrated
I was reading journalist David Brooks’ recent Op Ed in the New York Times on “The Limits of Policy” and couldn’t help but make the connection to policy in our field – especially adoption policy. Brooks argues that achieving desired outcomes often has less to do with policy and more to do with the intricate weave of social, cultural and psychological factors in a community. And he goes on to say that this intricate weave explains why quality-of-life factors vary so widely across the country – despite the fact that all of the communities in the country live under one set of national policies. So if we apply these ideas to developing good adoption policy, I think it means we should be more concerned with how we understand and work with our communities. Or as Brooks puts it, “Try to use policy to strengthen relationships.”
If you Google “animal adoption policies,” you can pull up thousands of references. Some are in softer language than others and some include explanations for their restrictions, but for the most part what you’re going to find is a very long list of “thou shalt’s” and “thou shalt not’s.” And before I come off too pompous here, let me come clean by telling you a little of my history. When I started at Monadnock Humane Society there was a big ugly sign in our reception area that said, “We reserve the right to refuse, delay or deny any adoption for any reason.” I was appalled by the aesthetics, so what was my grand improvement? I had a sign-maker do it over into a larger, more professional-looking sign. (Yes, I am embarrassed admitting this.) Eventually when I got tired of responding to angry letters to the editor about how we would rather euthanize animals than adopt them I began to see the light, and ultimately I was privileged to take part in the national Adoption Forums. So I admit it, as an adoption policy reformist, I am kind of like an ex-smoker.
Click image to enlarge and read
Policies that are full of do’s and don’ts will actually keep us at arm’s length from our communities. Or as Leslie Harris, Executive Director of Dakin Pioneer Valley Humane Society in western Massachusetts, puts it, “You insult far more terrific people while you are trying to ‘catch’ the rare person doing the wrong thing.” Check out DPVHS’s website and the simple way they walk their community through the adoption process. And while you’re at it, check out the thinking behind their open adoptions approach.
Here’s another breath of fresh air in adoption policies: Oregon Humane Society has an Adoption “Mission,” which is “to place 100% of the adoptable animals coming to the shelter into responsible homes utilizing excellent customer service skills.” Sharon Harmon, OHS Executive Director, explains the evolution in their adoption practices this way, “We began to view the public as a solution rather than a problem.” “User-friendly adoptions” – now THAT’s strengthening relationship with your community!
The people have our number. I found an online conversation about whether adoption policies are too strict at Animal Debates. If you care to peek, you’ll find hundreds of comments about the absurdity of some of our policies – and you’ll get a rather painful inkling of just how badly we’re offending the public on whom the animals so desperately depend.
Let’s start rethinking our adoption policies. How can we heed Brooks’ advice and “try to use policy to strengthen relationships” …with our communities?
Photos 1 and 3 courtesy of the Oregon Humane Society.
Tags: adoption policy, community relations, open adoptions
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Susan Ruderman Says:
What an interesting topic–especially for someone like me who is admin rather than direct animal care! But our adoption “policies” are closely linked to fundraising success. Someone who feels as if they just underwent a security clearance for a CIA job is less likely to become a donor than someone who feels that they were engaged in a collaboration aimed at producing the best possible outcome for human and animal. I am pleased that our policies are fairly progressive and lacking in arbitrary absolutes such as “No kittens adopted to homes with children younger than 10″ (a real restriction at another local shelter) or “No dogs younger than 12 months adopted to people who work full-time.” (Wouldn’t a better question be, “What do you plan to do with this puppy when you can’t be with it?”) We are even able to acknowledge that some previously indoor/outdoor cats want/need to remain indoor/outdoor and so we don’t force a prospective adopter to swear on a stack of litter pans that they will never allow the cat outdoors again. Trust works both ways–when a potential adopter is treated as someone worthy of respect and trust, the odds are greater than he or she will trust us. And in my line of work (fundraising), the bedrock of philanthropy is trust. So not only do open adoptions end up being better for the animals, they are eventually better for the organization’s fiscal health as well.
Scott NYC Says:
Good article…I’m from NYC and I walked away from several rescue organizations due to overzealous (but well-intentioned) folks who sent me a 10-14 page adoption forms. My new kitties did not need to know my social security number and the last 3 jobs I had held. I finally found one that had a 3 page form, made it through the interview and lecture but pulled the plug on the home visit.(Actually my insistence that it happen after work (midnight) and in the oh so faraway place called Queens actually cooled that part off). I had actually started walking the streets looking for my own rescue rather than deal with the folks at the rescues. A little time spent in public relations not making one feel as if I was collecting kittens for their pelts, might help dissuade people from buying cats and dogs from pet stores. Walk in, hand over your money and walk out with a puppy becomes more appealing after you deal with some of these rescue centers. I don’t agree but that’s the reality. By the way, thanks for being there for the defenseless.
Scott NYC Says:
By the way, we finally ended up with two little short-haired street rescues via friends keeping their eyes open for us. They are now 2 years old and live the life of kings in our apartment. Well fed, water fountain, individual litter boxes, a/c full time in summer, plenty of heat in winter and bed snuggling all year long. Neutered, micro-chipped, bi-annual vet visits, screens on all windows and 3 doors between them and outdoors. And all of this with out the threats from a shelter legal team. (Yes, one shelter had a legal form that would have bound me to the pet.) Ok, now I am done.
Bert Troughton Says:
Scott – thanks so much for this post. SO glad you have two great kitties finally – or rather, that they have you! As painful as it is to hear what you went through, I hope it helps us all take a good look at our intentions versus the actual outcomes!
Ed Fritz Says:
Great article. It reminds me of some of Mike Arms’ ideas on adoption policies. I’ve also heard arguments that these restrictive ideas such as fences, dog doors, etc. aren’t reflected in return rates. Similar to the idea that wealthy families are inherently better homes (hog wash).
I’m excited to hear Bert speak at this year’s No More Homeless Pets conference in Las Vegas this October!