Cited by 24Animal Law and WelfareHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies

Animal Shelters’ Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Pilot Survey of 14 Shelters in the Northeastern United States

Open access
Powell, Lauren, Houlihan, Caitlin, Stone, Martha, Gitlin, Ilana, Ji, Xuke, Reinhard, Chelsea L., Watson, Brittany·2021·Animals

Abstract

Anecdotal reports indicate that many animal shelters experienced increased adoption and foster care rates during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet peer-reviewed evidence is lacking. In this pilot survey of 14 animal shelters in the Northeastern United States, we aimed to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on animal intakes, foster care and five outcome types and describe operational changes reported by shelters in response to COVID-19. Paired sample t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare intake, adoption, euthanasia and foster care rates and numbers between March–June 2019 and 2020. The number of dogs and cats that entered shelters was significantly lower during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the same months of 2019 (t = 3.41, p = 0.01, t = 2.69, p = 0.02). Although the overall rate of adoption and euthanasia did not differ, the numbers adopted and euthanized decreased significantly for both dogs and cats, reflecting the significantly decreased intake. We also found significant variability between shelters. During the pandemic, several shelters sought to expand their foster care networks through operational changes (n = 6) and statements made to the public (n = 7). However, the proportion of dogs and cats housed in foster care did not differ between March–June 2019 and 2020 in our sample. Our findings offer preliminary insights regarding the impact of a worldwide pandemic on the functioning of animal shelters.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ani11092669

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In general, newly acquired pets are more likely to be relinquished.

    “In general, newly acquired pets are more likely to be relinquished.”

    From Companion animal adoption and relinquishment during the COVID-19 pandemic: Peri-pandemic pets at greatest risk of relinquishment (2022) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Results (section 3.1) compare shelter intake and owner relinquishments in 2019 and 2020, and the Discussion (section 4) reports fewer owner relinquishments during the pandemic. Neither passage compares newly acquired pets with longer-owned pets. Searches for recent acquisition, adoption returns, and ownership duration found no such comparison in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Powell et al. found that of all adopted animals from one USA shelter, 9.2% were returned within 6-months of adoption.

    “More recently, Powell et al. (10) found that of all adopted animals from one USA shelter, 9.2% were returned within 6-months of adoption.”

    From Companion animal adoption and relinquishment during the COVID-19 pandemic: Peri-pandemic pets at greatest risk of relinquishment (2022) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Results (section 3.1) report adoption rates across the surveyed shelters, not returns after adoption. Searches for the claimed 9.2% return rate and six-month follow-up found no passage in our copy addressing either figure. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [15]Bienzle D. Rousseau J. Marom D. Macnicol J. Jacobsen L. Sparling S. Weese J.S. Seropositivity for SARS-CoV-2 in cats and dogs Proceedings of the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) Online 9–12 July 2021
  2. [16]Broens E.M. Kannekens-Jager M. De Groot R. Kooistra H.S. Egberink H.F. Zhao S. Wagenaar J.A. Duim B. High prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in dogs and cats living in COVID-19 positive households Proceedings of the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) Online 9–12 July 2021

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Powell, L., Houlihan, C., Stone, M., Gitlin, I., Ji, X., Reinhard, C. L., & Watson, B.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Powell, Lauren
Venue
Animals
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-09-10
Volume
11
Issue
9
Pages
2669
ISSN
2076-2615 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3199865225
Cited by
22
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6
FWCI
24.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Animals (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Bernice Barbour Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Animal Law and Welfare
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Keywords
animal shelters, COVID-19 pandemic, pet adoption, foster care, euthanasia, dogs, cats, pet overpopulation, northeastern United States

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review