Punishment to Support: The Need to Align Animal Control Enforcement with the Human Social Justice Movement

Abstract

Due to inherent and systemic biases, animal control policies in the US are over-enforced in low-income communities and communities of color, resulting in worse health outcomes for the pets in these communities. These outcomes are exemplified by higher confiscation, relinquishment, and euthanasia rates, lower return to owner rates, and extended lengths of stay in animal shelters. The Humane Communities framework operationalizes One Health and One Welfare concepts to comprehensively address issues of inequity at both the individual and structural levels to improve animal control policy and outcomes. Person-centered and culturally competent policies and programs that focus resources on addressing root causes of pet health and welfare issues as opposed to an emphasis on code enforcement can create more positive, scalable, and sustainable improvements in human, other animal, and environmental health and welfare outcomes. This shift from punishment-oriented approaches to support-based models of animal control aligns the animal welfare field with the modern human social justice movement.

Animal Cruelty and Neighborhood Conditions

“…Animal welfare advocates and organizations have increasingly begun to recognize inherent discrimination related to judgments about pet-keeping and enforcement of animal welfare and control ordinances [40]. Strict enforcement of such legislation often targets low income, minority, and immigrant communities [41]. As a result, a number of animal welfare organizations around the US have been implementing programs to support those struggling financially to keep their pets in their homes providing food, low cost medical care, training assistance, fencing, crates, and so on [42].…”

Inequitable Flow of Animals in and Out of Shelters: Comparison of Community-Level Vulnerability for Owner-Surrendered and Subsequently Adopted Animals

“…The subjectivity of adoption application practices may allow for bias and discrimination against adopters ( 21 ), albeit confirmatory research is needed. Similarly, the current system of animal control/animal protection in some countries has disproportionate negative impacts on low-income communities and communities of color, including higher confiscation of animals and lower proportion of animals returned to their owner ( 22 ). Currently, animal laws are equivocal and thus may be susceptible to subjectivity, which often leads to over-enforcement for vulnerable communities ( 22 ).…”

“…Similarly, the current system of animal control/animal protection in some countries has disproportionate negative impacts on low-income communities and communities of color, including higher confiscation of animals and lower proportion of animals returned to their owner ( 22 ). Currently, animal laws are equivocal and thus may be susceptible to subjectivity, which often leads to over-enforcement for vulnerable communities ( 22 ). Perhaps another source of inequity in animal sheltering services comes from the differences between demographics of owners who surrender animals and those who adopt them.…”

Where Are We on the Animal Welfare Map? Using GIS to Assess Stakeholder Diversity and Inclusion

“…This has prompted many animal welfare organizations (AWOs) to consider the role of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the design of support services and general operations ( 2 ). Since the start of the pandemic, AWOs have increasingly focused on supporting the human-animal bond by providing and promoting support for both pet parents and their pets, similar to traditional social service supports 1 ( 3 ). Additionally, new organizations have formed to promote inclusivity and combat biases 2 .…”

“…Historically, the sector has not prioritized training around effective, non-judgmental engagement with non-English-speaking immigrants and marginalized and vulnerable individuals and communities. Animal welfare organizations, especially those with animal control responsibilities, can be seen as unwelcoming and threatening authority figures ( 3 ).…”