Could we really get public money for spay/neuter? Peter Marsh, founder of Solutions To Overpopulation of Pets (STOP) in New Hampshire, talks about how they created a state-wide publicly funded spay/neuter program, the lifesaving results, and how you can develop such a campaign for your community.

Feature articles on this topic

Question Topics
What about subsidizing spay/neuter for those who are just above low-income?
Are mandatory spay/neuter laws for shelters a good idea?
Eligibility requirements for indigent people in spay/neuter programs
What about feral cats?
Determining the number of sterilizations to decrease shelter intakes
How do other communities get public funding?
What is the best type of spay/neuter program to reach low-income?
How do you get all vets to agree to same protocols for a program?
Misc. member responses
Convincing animal control a surcharge will work
Successful publicly funded models
More member comments
How do we educate the public on a large scale about spay/neuter benefits?

Subject: What about subsidizing spay/neuter for those who are just above low-income?

Question from Chris from WA:
Low-income spay/neuter programs are great for those who qualify for public assistance, but what about those whose income falls just above qualification? For example, a $30,000/yr household income in New Hampshire would probably go significantly farther than the same income in New York City. Is there a way to help these people without alienating the vet community by forcing them to discount prices, and without bankrupting an organization? Or is this even necessary?

Response from Peter:
Let me try to answer each of your questions:

Is it necessary to set up neutering assistance programs to help caretakers who don't qualify for indigent programs but still need help (folks some people speak of as the "working poor")? Yes. Every effective sterilization (i.e. one that wouldn't have taken place if your program hadn't helped) helps drive down the shelter death rate by driving down the number of animals who enter shelters in the future, which is, after all, the name of the game. As you get higher and higher up the income scale, though, it becomes more and more likely that the caretaker would have been able to afford the surgery without your help.

That's why indigent neuters are so important: they're the most effective. I think of them like racing fuel--they help you go where you need to go FAST! Working poor neuters are like regular gas. They still help, but not as much.

Is there any way for a neutering assistance program for the working poor to avoid alienating the veterinary community? You're asking the right question, Chris, because the support of the veterinary community may turn out to be the single most important thing we need to end shelter overpopulation. Two things may help: First, raise your own money for the program; don't attempt to get public funding. Vets in private practice understandably see any use of public funding for a program like this as using taxpayers' money to unfairly compete with them. Second, you may want to set up a sliding scale that takes into account the caretaker's income.

This may reduce the number of times that a person found eligible for your program pulls up to one of your vet's hospitals in a car that the vet can't afford!

How do you keep a neutering assistance program for the poor solvent?
Again, Chris, you've asked the right question. The income distribution in America has a bell-shaped curve, like my old geometry teacher's grading system. As you approach the middle class, the number of people eligible for your program becomes staggering. And the administrative costs begin to approach (or even exceed) the amount of the subsidy you can offer. It just doesn't make sense to spend half of your money administering your program, which is what happens if it costs you $15 in administrative costs to distribute a $15 subsidy. Our largest program for the working program in NH (NH Spaying & Altering Service) is run by volunteers (actually one extraordinary volunteer) but it still costs us about $8 a neuter for advertising. If you have Internet access, you can get the reported income distribution for your area on the IRS website. Then I'd set the top qualifying income at no more than 20% of the local range and set up a sliding scale down to where your indigent program leaves off.

Subject: Are mandatory spay/neuter laws for shelters a good idea?

Question from a member:
Do you think mandatory pre-adoption sterilization laws for shelters and rescue groups are a good idea?

Response from Peter:
Absolutely. Ten years ago, there may have been some basis to argue that mandatory Neuter Before Adoption (NBA) laws were not that important. None remains. These laws are critical for three reasons. Most importantly, in recent years they have demonstrated their effectiveness in driving down shelter admission and shelter death rates. They work. Second, they are quite
affordable. Sometimes the cost can be brought down to the amount of the deposit that the shelter or rescue group is already taking. Finally it is a little bit questionable for shelters and rescue groups to tell everyone in sight that all responsible caretakers sterilize the companion animals in their care and then not to do it themselves. Credibility requires walking the talk.

By the way, the same holds true for other things we ask everyone to do, like providing their companion animals with permanent ID. If it's the right thing for them to do, it's the right thing for us, too, because shelters and rescuers have become caretakers once they have taken an animal into their care. The rules apply to us, too (indeed we have established many of them ourselves).

Subject: Eligibility requirements for indigent people in spay/neuter programs

Question from a Member in NC:
I am a veterinarian, working with our city's first spay/neuter clinic. We have been open about a year and, even though we are not a high-volume clinic, the local vets are having fits. They want us to agree to perform services only for indigent people. Otherwise, they will do all they can to make life difficult for us. I am solidly opposed to the indigent idea because it is demeaning to ask poor people to produce documents proving they are poor, and because the services are needed by people who do not qualify as "indigent". So I am gathering information from others as to how they have successfully handled the problem. What can you tell me?

Response from Peter:
The gold standard for an income eligibility criterion in an indigent neutering assistance program is Medicaid eligibility, such as the Maddie's Low Income programs in California, Utah and Alabama. There are four reasons for this: First, it's less intrusive (human services administrators have already done the intruding!). Second, it's cheap to administer. Just asking people to send a copy of their Medicaid card costs everyone very little. You should be able to administer the program for about $8 a neuter, the cost to administer the NH programs (perhaps even less if the program is administered by volunteers, which is very realistic). Third, it accurately differentiates between people who need help and those who don't (i.e., it has high validity). Finally, it avoids having to ask participating vets to do the intruding or even doing a lot of paperwork. The goal must be for them to spend as much of their time as possible on surgery, the best use of their very valuable skills.

Subject: What about feral cats?

Question from a member:
What about feral cats? They are not necessarily cared for by people who are on public assistance, but that does not mean that the caregiver can afford to get the cats fixed either. Yet, clearly if we are going to stem the tide, the feral cats really need to be neutered too. What are your thoughts?

Response from Peter:
I'm delighted that you've mentioned ferals. I've been meaning to ask Aimee, who moderates the forum, if I could ask myself a question or two on a slow day and this is one of the questions I would have asked.

You're right when you suggest that we can't stem the tide of homeless animals if we ignore ferals. Sometimes we tend to measure our success or failure solely by the shelter death toll. And certainly that's a big part of it. But our mission is really even bigger. It's to improve the lot of every homeless animal, whether he or she ever ends up in a shelter or not (often a matter decided by Providence). And given the spiritual core of our work, we can't leave any homeless animal behind, especially those who are the least understood and in the greatest danger.

It's only fair that feral cat protection groups receive public funding for their work. Just because, in a sweet gesture, they've stepped forward to help, doesn't mean that they should have to go it alone. After all, this isn't just their problem. It's everybody's. And everyone stands to gain from their work. In many cases, we all benefit even more from their work than from the public funds spent to operate animal shelters. Once homeless animals have been impounded, they present very limited public health risks.

It's becoming more and more common for cities and counties to recognize this and to award grants to feral cat protection groups. Esther Mechler, the founder of SPAY/USA has secured public funding for her Bridgeport (Connecticut) Cat Project from the City Health Department for many years.

Advocates from Columbus (OH) to Haverhill (MA) to Berkeley (CA) and Brevard County (FL) have received public funding, too. Esther (http://www.spayusa.org/) or Becky Robinson, the National Director of Alley Cat Allies (http://www.alleycat.org/) can give you a much better idea of all the groups that have secured public funding and how to go about it. Just keep in mind that all of the "trap and kill" programs around the country are paid for with our money. We have a right--no, an obligation--to suggest a better way.

Subject: Determining the number of sterilizations to decrease shelter intakes

Question from Rick in FL:
I know with effective spay/neuter programs targeted at the poor we can expect to see a dramatic decrease in shelter intake and euthanasia in a short time. What formula can we use to determine the number of effective surgeries that will be needed in a geographic area to obtain this dramatic decrease in shelter intake?

Response from Peter:
We had the same idea in the early 90's here in New Hampshire. We set goals every year from '93-2000 for increases of effective sterilizations and adoptions and drops in shelter deaths. It seemed like a good motivational tool – like a sales quota.

After a while, though, we tore them up. It seemed like they were holding us back, not driving us forward. Because the goal is to save every life you can. There is no acceptable quota. No time to rest. You need to save every life you can, and every effective sterilization is a lifesaver. You always need to do one more.

Let me give you a goal, though. Try to do more effective neuters than anyone ever has before. Set the No More Homeless Pets record. Maddie's Big Fix for Alabama has recently set the bar a little higher for all of us by achieving 27,893 indigent surgeries in only 18 months (which comes down to about 4.2 surgeries per year per 1000 residents). Your mission, Rick, if you decide to accept it, is to raise the bar still higher for your comrades of the heart in the South and throughout the country.

Subject: How do other communities get public funding?

Question from a Member:
Can you give suggestions on ways for other communities to get public funding and build support with the animal groups and public officials?

Response from Peter:
This is another question I would have asked myself. I'm starting to wonder if Aimee is making these questions up!

For a century at least, animal protection work in America has been intertwined with child protection work. Many animal advocates have been children's advocates, too. Some, like the AHA, still are.

To get where we need to go, we have to begin to engage our communities as
effectively as the children's advocates have. That's how they got the kids
out of the mines and mills and orphanages.

The road ahead is the same road they've followed. Along with everyone
else trying to change the world. When you get on the road, you'll meet the
advocates for women, the poor, minorities and the environment. Many of these
people have done a much better job than I ever could in giving you the road
map to follow for legislative work. Among the best is an article put together by the Animal Protection Institute titled "Voices for Wildlife: Grassroots Activism for Wildlife Protection." It's available on the API website (http://www.api4animals.org/) under Campaigns and Programs. Another excellent resource is Julie Lewin of the National Institute for Animal Advocacy (http://www.animalpolitics.com/). Make it a priority to attend the next workshop she puts on. They're the best.

Subject: What is the best type of spay/neuter program to reach low-income?

Question from Meagan:
What do you think about mobile spay/neuter units as a means of providing low cost surgeries to low-income areas? Specifically, do you think these are better than voucher programs or stand-alone clinics?

Response from Peter:
I think mobile spay/neuter units should have a very limited role in providing low-cost surgeries to low-income caregivers. Perhaps they may be the best service delivery models when there are no existing veterinary hospitals within a reasonable traveling distance of a low-income area. Even then, though, I would get out a sharp pencil and look at the cost of other alternatives, such as transporting the animals to existing veterinary hospitals beyond the local area.

Hands down, the best service delivery model for a low-income program, to my mind, is the Veterinary Medical Association program developed by Rich Avanzino for Maddie's Fund. First, it's cost effective. Although a mobile unit may provide some economies of scale, the initial capital outlay for a truck is substantial (often enough to subsidize a couple of thousand indigent surgeries) and usually just duplicates existing infrastructure (i.e. existing veterinary hospitals). This is often true for fixed site clinics, too. Second, the VMA model encourages caregivers to develop a long-term relationship with their local vet- something that is important for us to foster. Third, and perhaps most important, the VMA model helps more fully engaging the veterinary community not only in the current struggle against shelter overpopulation but our long term mission to revolutionize the care that homeless companion animals receive.

If we are able to fully engage the veterinary community, I have no doubt that its members have the tools and the talent to eradicate overpopulation, just as in our lifetimes they have made short work of other epidemic threats
to small animals, like canine leptospirosis and parvovirus.

I hope that's just the beginning. I see an even greater role for them after that. I think the accelerating revolution in small animal practice holds out great hope that vets will help bring about a similar revolution in the care of companion animals who have become homeless. If this sounds utopian to you, I encourage you to read an excellent article by Dr. Janet Scarlett and others in the February 2002 edition of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) titled "The Role of Veterinary Practitioners in Reducing Dog and Cat Relinquishments and Euthanasias."

In a nutshell, the veterinary community has the potential to revolutionize the care we give to homeless animals. If we can only harness that potential, I'm convinced that a generation from now advocates will look back on today's animal shelter in the same way that children's advocates now look back on orphanages, as an outmoded institution from long ago and far away. And the VMA model is a great step in that direction.

Subject: How do you get all vets to agree to same protocols for a program?

Question from a Member:
We have eight veterinarians in our program, but they all have different restrictions about the types and genders of animals they will accommodate from us – (i.e. some will help with ferals, some will spay pregnant females, some will do early-age altering, etc). In addition, even their surgery protocols differ - some use absorbable sutures, some use gas, etc.

In the NH program, do your participating veterinarians have to agree to any other particular standards/program issues besides fee reimbursement rates? Or do residents have to find a participating veterinarian who can
accommodate their unique case? If the latter is true, is there a way for caregivers to determine which veterinarian can best meet their need?

Response from Peter:
We see the same diversity in protocols and procedures in New Hampshire, but the state-funded programs do not set any standards of care or required procedures. Those are left up to the state licensing agency and veterinary disciplinary board.

Caregivers can get information about participating veterinarians from the Program Administrator at the state program or from a private spay/neuter information and referral service. In my experience, though, like everyone else they contact participating veterinarians directly to determine which one would be the best for their needs.

Subject: Member responses

From Josie in VA:
Subject: Regarding humiliating the indigent
I always keep my tone friendly and respectful, and indicate that I WANT them to qualify and I'm THRILLED that they have called me and want to help their animal. I always indicate that we're going to work out something one way or the other. I always ask permission to ask income questions. Once or twice (out of about 1,000 interviews I've done) someone has declined to answer the questions and therefore chosen to do something else.

More often than not, people launch into long involved stories about their husband's back problem, their cat's cute ways, the dog next door they rescued, etc. The whole interaction depends on the ATTITUDE of the
questioner. The reason Welfare stuff can be so humiliating is that often Social Workers get burned out and seem to want to block people, or automatically think of them as liars. Carefully keeping your own attitude straight and having a supportive, up-beat person doing the interviews makes all the difference.

From Mickey in CO:
Subject: Public funding in Colorado
Colorado put into effect last year, a spay and neuter donation box on their state income tax forms.... These funds were then applied for by humane societies and rescue organizations to subsidize low cost and no cost spay and neuter programs in their communities. Our organization was granted $5,000 to subsidize spay and neuters for all dogs and cats on a western slope Indian reservation and we were lucky to find a wonderful local vet with a mobile service to perform these surgeries at little cost. You can learn more about the program through http://www.savecoloradopets.org/. I think this came about through a concerted effort of rescue groups, petitioning for signatures in order to get it placed on or state tax forms. It is a great program. Your local state government would probably have all the details of what is involved

From Glenda in TX:
Subject: Mobile vans
Austin's Emancipet van was donated, costs covered by city. It stays busy - long lines and frequent turn-aways to latecomers.

From Jan:
Subject: Regarding what about feral cats?
And we have an obligation to convince Maddie's Fund that they should again fund spay/neuter for ferals.

Subject: Convincing animal control a surcharge will work

Question from a Member:
Can you share the steps in how you actually got a $2 surcharge added on, including how you convinced the dog wardens/animal control that this would work? In our county, the dog warden has the highest fee in the state and he is adamantly opposed to adding on a surcharge because he feels that he will lose people licensing their dogs. How can we convince him otherwise? We need his support to get this passed.

Response from Peter:
It wasn't easy for us to get the surcharge added, as I mentioned at the end of a Best Friends magazine interview posted on this forum's web site as "The Campaign for a Publicly-Funded Spay/Neuter Program." We started out the legislative session a year earlier with a bill seeking a $10 increase in the differential right away and an increase of $3 every year until the State Veterinarian certified to the Legislature that no healthy and adoptable cat or dog had been put to death the year before in a New Hampshire shelter. I'm still very fond of that idea. But that proposal got us thrown down the Capitol steps (figuratively) with our hats and coats trailing behind.

First of all, you need to convince people that we can't just keep on keeping on. Killing healthy animals is intolerable. Often, we did that with the story of the Cat Who Loved Kittens, which is mentioned in the Best Friends magazine interview (and her sweet photo is on the forum web site at the top of the article titled: "The Chain of Collars: How We Learned to Save the Homeless Animals of New Hampshire"). Once you've got people upset, you need to show them how you can help them become "un-upset" again. You've got a program that will help. Explain to them why it will help and how. Tell them how much it will cost. Then suggest a funding source, explaining that if they have a better idea how to get the needed funds, that's okay, too (keeping in mind the AAA criteria mentioned in my previous post). But suggest that because we all agree that there's a problem and a way to help solve it, we can't just walk away. They can't "Just Say No" to your funding suggestion and leave it at that (unless they want you to keep tormenting them with Cat Who Loved Kittens-type stories until they come up with something).

One suggestion with the dog warden in your county: given the high licensing fees, I'll bet less than 50% of the dogs in the county are licensed (probably closer to 30% or even less). He seems to think it's important for people to license their dogs, so go with that. Do some research into progressive licensing approaches and, hopefully with the County Veterinary Medical Association, put together a set of programs to increase the rate of licensure in the county with the understanding that the warden (and the county) will dedicate most of the revenue from increased licensure to your program.

Our Pet Overpopulation Committee did that in NH. Our neutering assistance program turned out to be so popular that we ran out of money the first two years. With the help of vets, we got legislation passed requiring veterinarians to send a copy of every rabies certificate they issued to the local City or Town Clerk, who checked it against dog licenses that had been issued and followed up with the phantom Fidos who got a rabies shot but hadn't been licensed. Seven years ago, when that law was passed, we licensed 88,000 dogs in NH. Last year it had grown to 146,000.

You may not follow exactly the same path, but I'm sure if you work with the warden you can substantially increase the number of licenses he issues. Given the relatively high fee in the county, this may generate more than enough new funding to pay for your program. A single Chinese hieroglyph signifies both war and opportunity. Often that's the case in legislative projects. The opposition you encounter along the way creates its own opportunity. The key is not to quit, just as the companions we care for wouldn't think of ever giving up if the tables were turned and our lives were at stake.

Subject: Successful publicly funded models

Question from a Member:
For those of us who are trying to convince our local politicians to publicly fund a spay/neuter program, can you suggest other successful programs to show them besides NH and Maricopa County?

Response from Peter:
The most persuasive examples for you to use when trying to convince public officials to put up money for a program probably will be other publicly funded programs. The Low Income program with the longest track record and the most comprehensive statewide shelter statistics was started in New Jersey in 1984. At that time, 161,000 cats and dogs were impounded in the state, of which 83,000 were put to death. By 1999, the number of impoundments had fallen to 115,000 dogs and cats, of which about 48,000 were put to death (about 7 dogs and cats per 1000 residents). This program would probably have had an even greater impact in driving down impoundments and shelter deaths if it had been fully funded every year.

A number of other publicly-funded programs are described in the spay/neuter chapter of an excellent book published last February by the International City/County Management Association titled: "Animal Control Management: A Guide for Local Governments." It was written by Geoff Handy and is available online at the ICMA Bookstore (http://www.icma.org/) for $22 or for $11 from The HSUS, Dept. ICMA-ASM, 2100 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037. Actually, you may want to give a copy of the book to the officials you are working with. ICMA is a well-respected municipal trade organization and the book contains information about a number of progressive animal control programs in addition to an excellent spay/neuter chapter.

Subject: More member comments

From Julie in LA:
Subject: Eligibility requirements for indigent people in spay/neuter programs
A nice 'olive branch' might be to make sure every vet in the area has attractive, informative spay/neuter marketing materials (posters, pamphlets, pins or buttons for the staff... whatever works for them). Preferably something that the vet can personalize with his or her own clinic name, not something that advertises the low-cost clinic or even any other animal welfare effort. Most vet clinic waiting rooms have Rimadyl ads, Heartguard brochures and other medical product information. Those materials are given to the vets by drug salespeople at the expense of the drug companies because they know it results in increased sales of those products. As 'spay/neuter salespeople', perhaps we should be providing area veterinarians with the same sort of marketing support.

The two businesses could work together to monitor changes in the total number of spay/neuter surgeries at BOTH locations. The for-profit, full-service clinic could actively promote spay/neuter to current and potential clients, allowing the low-cost clinic to focus on the markets not already served, or to work on attracting the population subset that does not respond to the marketing efforts of the full-service clinic.

From Judy in TN:
Subject: Dog license fees and license plates
I'm not sure where in the South this person is from, but in Tennessee we have a dog license fee and it generates money for our shelter every year. In addition, when you renew your automobile license tags you can get an Animal Friendly automobile license plate for an extra $25. The funds generated from that are specifically targeted as grants for spay/neuter programs. As a matter of fact, our shelter, has received money from that program to be used for our mobile spay/neuter clinic, which provides free spay/neuters for low-income citizens in our county. (Note: http://www.palc.org/ has a listing of how to get spay/neuter license plates and what states have them)

From a Member:
Subject: Other means of public funding possibilities
Why don't we put a small surcharge on pet food and products and use a symbol that identifies the product as a contributing member to animal welfare in the town/city it is purchased--it could be run by a non-profit. People like me would love to buy these products knowing we are saving lives.

Subject: How do we educate the public on a large scale about spay/neuter benefits?

From Michelle in VA:
We've talked a lot this week about how to enact spay/neuter campaigns, but how do you effectively get the public's buy-in to such programs? After all, they are pointless if the public does not take advantage of them. I run into cultural brick walls in many places when I suggest spay/neuter to many people. How can you impress upon people ALL the benefits of spay/neuter without offending them? Better yet, how can you educate the public on a large scale to make spay/neuter programs truly effective?

Response from Peter:
This is an excellent question. In the end, our efforts will rise or fall depending on how effectively we engage the people who live with us in our communities. Everything depends on it. Getting public funding. Getting vets to help. And getting caregivers to sterilize the animals they keep.

Our first generation of community education programs has convinced the great majority of people that having the companion animals they keep sterilized is the right thing to do. The dilemma you raise, Michelle, is how to reach the sizeable minority who still haven't.

No one strategy is sufficient because the studies have shown that different people have different reasons for not having the animals they keep sterilized. I'd do three things:

1. It's important to recognize that many people have legitimate reasons for not having the animals they care for neutered. They genuinely can't afford to. Or they can't get transportation to a vet. The answer: graciously get them the help they need to get it done. Some people told us when we proposed our Low-Income Program that we had stars in our eyes (to which we pleaded "Guilty," but not about the program). "Low Income people don't care." "They're irresponsible." "Even if you give the surgeries to them for free, they still wouldn't bother." They were dead wrong. It turned out that the problem we had was getting enough funding for all the people who wanted to go through the program. The remarkable volume of Maddie's Low Income Program in Alabama (more than 27,000 surgeries in only 18 months) is more evidence that low-income people want to have the companion animals they keep neutered just like everyone else--they just need help to get it done. Our job is to get them that help.
   
2. Earlier community education programs have often stressed what a terrible betrayal occurs when a healthy cat or dog is put to death. That message may have reached most of the people that it's going to. Recent relinquishment studies suggest that it is important that we begin to more strongly emphasize the behavioral benefits of sterilization. This time of year in NH, we brace ourselves for a big increase in the volume of our neutering assistance programs. And the calls are a little different. When we offer to put a certificate in the mail, people often say, "We really can't wait for the mail man. Patches is in heat and it’s driving everyone here nuts!" And when they come by a little later, it looks as if they've slept standing up for a few days.
   
3. Money means a great deal to some people. Bob Dylan claims that "money doesn't talk, it swears," but some folks apparently enjoy bad language. These types are immune to the horror and even learn to tolerate the hair-curling experience of having a cat or dog in heat. A little math shows that by not spending their money on sterilization, what they are really doing is shifting the cost to us. On average, each intact dog costs taxpayers about $35 in animal control expenses, compared to about $12 for a sterilized dog. Every community needs a differential license fee that takes this into account, so those people who decide to maintain an intact animal pay their fair share of the cost. They should pay to play. The money from the surcharge should be used to fund a Low Income program. A $10 differential with good licensing enforcement will be enough to pay for the entire Low Income Program. That way, those contrarians who still won't neuter the animals in their household at least help those who can't.

Feature articles:
The Chain of Collars: How We Learned to Save the Homeless Animals of New Hampshire, article by Peter Marsh from Best Friends Magazine, July 2002
The Campaign for a Publicly Funded Spay/Neuter Program in New Hampshire is a model of what can be achieved in order to provide a statewide, low-cost program.
To the Rescue: A New Generation of Programs to End Companion Animal Homelessness
The Only Cure is Prevention (.pdf). A one-page chart to help plan your progam.
More Resources:
New Hampshire's Second Generation L-E-S Strategy: A mission to end overpopulation.
New Hampshire's Publicly-Funded Neutering Assistance Programs: Saving Lives and Money

Best Friends would like to thank everyone who participated in this forum.
Please see our Forum Schedule for upcoming speakers
and previous forum topics.