What is it about?
Assessment of animal shelters uses counts of animal intakes and outcomes by type. Intakes include animals found stray, surrendered by their owner, confiscated, or transferred from another organization. Outcomes include animals returned to their owner, adopted, transferred to another organization, or (sadly) euthanized. This study focused on a common metric called the Live Release Rate (LRR). It measures the percentage of animals that leave a shelter alive. The goal of the study was to understand what patterns in intake and outcome changes are associated with changes in LRR. By analyzing government-related shelter data reported to a national database from 2016 through 2024, the study looked at year-to-year changes in LRR for dogs in this large sample of facilities, with shelters grouped by whether their initial LRR was relatively low or already high. The results showed LRR is strongly associated with increased adoptions—but not with reductions in intake or increases in returns to owners. On the average, shelters that improved their LRR tended to help more dogs find new adoptive homes, but did not take fewer dogs in or reunite more dogs to their original families. The study shows that some assumptions in the sheltering field are not supported by the historical data. Though some shelters may reduce euthanasia rates by reducing intake (for example by limiting owner surrenders) this is not the dominant path observed in the statistics. Instead, the study shows that helping more dogs get adopted is a critical driver of better shelter performance. The study gives detailed tables that show how much each type of intake or outcome contributes to a change in the live release rate. That is a critical insight for shelters looking to allocate limited staff time and funding to the programs that can move the needle.
Featured Image
Photo by Angela Handfest on Unsplash
Why is it important?
When advocates, policymakers, and shelter professionals talk about reducing euthanasia and saving more animals, they might push for across-the-board increases in live outcomes including return of dogs to owners or transfers to other organizations. Or they might look at intake restrictions. What this research highlights that adoptions play the biggest role in performance (measured as LRR changes). This matters because it helps ground policy discussions in evidence. This does not mean that another live outcome, e.g., reuniting the dog with the original owner, is less desirable. Rather, the study suggests that these outcomes are less flexible. Perhaps most shelters are already proactive and remaining opportunities are limited. The study applies to LRR decreases (worsening performance) as well as increases. Reductions in LRR are associated with reductions in adoptions but not increases in intakes. Live release rates have become a widely discussed performance measure within animal welfare communities, and many cities and counties publicly share these statistics to show progress and build trust with the public. Shelters across the U.S. report LRRs in the 80–90% range, and communities celebrate those gains because higher live outcomes generally mean fewer dogs are dying in care. By showing that increases in LRR correlate with adoptions rather than reduced intake, this study provides evidence in favor of expanded adoption hours or better marketing of individual animals. The findings also underscore why transparent data reporting matters. Without consistent, organization-level outcome data, it’s very difficult for researchers and the public to understand what really drives changes in shelter performance. This supports ongoing calls for improved data availability and standards. See also this press release: https://myemail.constantcontact.com/SCIL-Data-Scientist-Publishes-Paper-on-Live-Release-Rate-Data-.html?soid=1101925750350&aid=nEBbCI_0ZS4
Perspectives
As a data scientist I began this research with a simple question: What is the pattern of intake and outcome shifts that is linked to better outcomes for dogs in shelters? Some of what I found surprised me. I assumed adoptions are important, but I didn’t know they’d emerge as the clear winner. I did not suspect that there’s a disconnect between intake reductions and live release improvements. I certainly could not guess the average pattern of changes without crunching the numbers. I recommend a close look of the paper’s Table 5, specifically the b columns. Most shelters that start from a high baseline (the right section of the table). For these, one percentage point change in LRR involves 0.23 increase in total intakes and a 1.07 increase in adoptions. It also involves an increase of 0.27 in animals transferred out but that’s cancelled out by a 0.30 increase in animals transferred into the shelter. I believe data should guide decisions. I’ve seen countless debates in sheltering circles where loud opinions aren’t backed by evidence. This paper is an attempt to let the data speak, examining nearly a decade of data form hundreds of organizations rather than snapshots or anecdotes. I also want to advocate for more data transparency in animal welfare. Public trust is undermined when data is incomplete or hard to access. We need a culture of openness and fact-based discussions—so that communities and policymakers have the tools to reduce bad outcomes for dogs and other companion animals. I am grateful to the shelters and databases that made this analysis possible, and I’m optimistic about the future of evidence-based decision-making in shelter policies and operations.
Michael Mavrovouniotis
Social Compassion / SCIL
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Changes in live release rates of dogs in government-related animal shelters are retrospectively associated with changes in adoptions but not returns to owner or any intake category, American Journal of Veterinary Research, December 2025, American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA),
DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.25.09.0335.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
