Minding the Gap: Networks of Animal Welfare Service Provision

• Author: Minting Ye,Laura A. Reese
• Date: 01 July 2017
• DOI: 10.1177/0275074015623377
• Published date: 01 July 2017
• Subject Matter: Articles

American Review of Public Administration

2017, Vol. 47(5) 503 –519

© The Author(s) 2015

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0275074015623377

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp

Article

This research focuses on public service delivery in the con-

text of an important emerging urban policy issue: the num-

bers of roaming and homeless animals in distressed cities in

the United States. Increasing economic stress and the con-

comitant reduction in public financial resources in the wake

of the Great Recession make it extremely difficult for local

governments to respond to changing public policy environ-

ments, address new public problems, and provide new or

expanded services. The case of urban animal welfare policy

illustrates a domain that relies heavily, and in some cities

almost exclusively, on networks of nonprofit organizations

for service provision. How these networks function and the

interaction between nonprofit and public entities says much

about how cities will be able to respond to new policy

environments.

Companion animal overpopulation is a growing problem

in the United States; a fertile cat can produce one to two lit-

ters of four to six kittens per year, and the average fertile dog

produces one litter with an average of four to six puppies

annually.1 Given that there are an estimated 70 million stray

cats and dogs in the country and that only 10% of animals

received by animal shelters are spayed or neutered, the

potential for animal overpopulation is extreme.1 In addition

to strays, an average of 324,5001 animals are relinquished to

animal shelters yearly by their owners due to family disrup-

tion (divorce, death), foreclosure, economic problems, or

minor behavioral issues.2 Current estimates of animals in

shelters in the United States range from three to eight mil-

lion.3 Since there are only about 13,600 community animal

shelters, euthanasia due to overcrowding is common4; esti-

mates of animals euthanized in shelters annually vary widely,

from 4 to 17 million (Bartlett, Bartlett, Walshaw, & Halstead,

2005). It has been estimated that US$2,400 million public

dollars were spent on shelters in 2007 and that communities

across the United States spend about US$8 per capita annu-

ally on shelters5; animal services are commonly provided at

the local level of government. Yet, little extant research

exists on this service area; city managers indicate that the

need to address animal issues took them by surprise once on

the job (Swindell, Hilvert, & Thoreson, in press).

Stray and feral cats and dogs are a visible aspect of the

animal welfare problem in many urban areas in the United

States. A long acknowledged problem in cities worldwide,

free-roaming animals are a serious public health, safety, and

policy issue in many distressed urban centers (Estrada-

Franco et al., 2006; Suzán & Ceballos, 2005). Estimates of

stray and feral dogs in the City of Detroit, the focus of this

study, range from 3,000 to 50,000. Although the higher fig-

ure is unlikely (as it would represent a dog for every 14 resi-

dents), even 3,000 would mean 1,000 dogs per each of the

now three animal control officers in the city. Urban

1Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

2De Anza College, Cupertino, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Laura A. Reese, Michigan State University, 447 Berkey, East Lansing, MI

48824, USA.

Email: reesela@msu.edu

Minding the Gap: Networks of Animal

Welfare Service Provision

Laura A. Reese1 and Minting Ye1,2

Abstract

This research focuses on public service provision in the context of an important emerging urban policy issue: increasing

numbers of roaming animals in distressed cities in the United States. The case of urban animal welfare policy illustrates a

policy domain that relies heavily on informal networks of nonprofit organizations for service provision. How these networks

function and the interaction between nonprofit and public entities says much about how cities will be able to respond to

increasingly changing policy environments. Based on survey and network analysis of organizations involved in animal welfare

service provision in Detroit, the following conclusions are drawn: Urban animal welfare services are much broader than

simple animal “control” and encompass the physical, behavioral, and emotional well-being of animals; less common aspects

of animal welfare services evidence the highest levels of cooperation; a fragmented network of nonprofit rescues and public

entities is providing animal welfare services in the City of Detroit although nonprofit providers dominate; and collaborative

service networks vary greatly in size, density, and composition depending on different aspects of services provided.

Keywords

collaborative service networks, networks, animal welfare policy, nonprofit networks

504 American Review of Public Administration 47(5)

free-roaming dogs specifically raise a number of serious

public policy risks: public health threats including increased

exposure to dog bites and transmission of zoonotic diseases

such as rabies and leptospirosis,6 criminality related to dog

fighting and animal cruelty, visible signs of physical disorder

within communities, health threats to owned animals and urban

wildlife, and humane concerns for the dogs themselves.

This study focuses on the service provision environment

for emerging urban problems specifically examining informal

collaborative networks of public and nonprofit organizations.

In the context of weak public sector governing capacity, how

are new service needs addressed and what are the relation-

ships between the nonprofit and public sectors? The urban

animal welfare service environment explored here suggests

what may happen in public service provision in other rapidly

changing problem areas such as natural hazard emergencies,

disease outbreaks, or problems not even on the urban policy

radar. It makes several contributions to the literature on urban

service provision: it (a) describes and explores the parameters

of a public service not well examined in the extant litera-

ture—animal welfare—that has important implications for

human and animal health and safety in urban areas; (b) pro-

vides baseline information on the extent of service collabora-

tion between public and nonprofit organizations, the nature of

service provision networks, and initial findings on patterns of

collaboration from which further hypotheses can be devel-

oped and tested regarding the nature of informal service net-

works; and (c) provides baseline data on informal networks

that can serve as the starting point for longitudinal analysis of

network change and development.

Animal Welfare Policy

Because this research focuses on service provision related to

urban animal welfare a brief discussion of the policy domain

is necessary; there is a dearth of research on urban animal

policy. In a narrow sense, many communities have animal

ordinances and animal control functions to enforce those

ordinances. Model local animal ordinances have been recom-

mended by the National Animal Interest Alliance to include a

wide range of issues: licensing and rabies vaccinations; leash

requirements; definitions of “at-risk” and “dangerous” ani-

mals (typically dogs); licensing of feral cat colonies; animal

control/welfare advisory boards; investigation of cruelty,

abuse, and neglect cases; training for animal control person-

nel; regulations for adequate care; and antitethering ordi-

nances.7 However, there is no research to assess how closely

actual policies match the recommended model ordinances. In

addition, there is a great deal more to ensuring animal welfare

than even these “best practices” would suggest. There is a

good bit of contention regarding a definition of “animal wel-

fare” and much of the somewhat dated published work

focuses on use of animals in research and food production

(Brambell, 1965; Stafleu, Grommers, & Vorstenbosch, 1996).

Generally, however, definitions of animal welfare are quite

broad, for example, “A state of complete mental and physical

health, where the animal is in harmony with its environment”

(Hughes, 1976, quoted in Fraser, 1995, p. 111). This suggests

that animal welfare is achieved only if both biological fitness

(Barnett & Hemsworth, 1990) and an optimal mental state

(Dawkins, 1990) are present and an animal can fulfill its

needs and wants (Curtis, 1985) including cognitive and spe-

cies-specific behavior needs (Stafleu et al.,1996). Duncan

and Dawkins (1983) indicate that animal welfare is only

achieved if both physical and mental health are present, if the

animal lives in harmony with its environment and can adapt

to the environment without suffering, and if the animal’s feel-

ings are considered. Thus, “one should take the question

‘when does an animal’s life go well?’ as a starting point for

animal welfare” (Stafleu et al., 1996, p. 227).

The animal welfare function in U.S. cities is often seen as

one of “animal control” meaning that stray animals should be

removed from the streets, held temporarily in case owners

come forward, and then disposed of in some manner, either

through transfer to an animal shelter or through euthanasia.

Providing animal welfare services, on the contrary, requires

more of local providers because the well-being of the animal

more broadly defined must be taken into consideration.

Animal welfare policies must protect both the health and

safety of the human population of a city but also the health

and safety of the animals. In addition to exploring service

collaborations for an emerging urban problem, the analysis

to follow also delineates the parameters of the animal wel-

fare service function, which again can serve as the base of

future research given that very little is known about this

common service area and in light of the increasing pressure

placed on local animal services as a result of roaming dogs in

many cities.8

Service Collaboration and Networks

Service Collaboration

With devolution and strained municipal budgets, local ser-

vices are increasingly being provided through partnerships

and collaboration between nonprofits and public entities

(Keyes, Schwartz, Vidal, & Bratt, 1996; Van Slyke, 2007).

Organizations collaborate for a variety of reasons including

enhanced ability to influence policy decisions, creating or

expanding capacity to deliver public goods and services,

pooling resources, increasing access to information and

expertise, and strengthening individual and collective capac-

ity to, and effectiveness in, addressing community-wide

issues (Agranoff & McGuire, 2003; Huang & Provan, 2007;

O’Toole, 1997). Collaboration is particularly necessary when

stakeholders are not organized, there is disparity in resources

and levels of expertise among stakeholders, problems are

characterized by technical complexity, unilateral efforts are

unlikely to produce effective solutions, and where existing

processes for addressing problems have proved insufficient