Dollars & Sense
|
What does it cost to achieve No Kill? And does it necessarily cost more overall? Over the last several years, the No Kill Advocacy Center analyzed shelter funding and save rates in multiple states, the economic impact on shelter expenses and revenue, as well as the economic impact on community businesses and tax revenues. After analyzing that data, the answer became pretty clear: saving lives is more cost effective than killing. No Kill is cost-effective, fiscally responsible, and a great economic boon to local communities. Municipalities which want to enact good policy and improve the local economy should invest in lifesaving at their local shelter. Given the cost savings and additional revenues of doing so (reduced costs associated with killing, enhanced community support, an increase in adoption revenues and other user fees, and additional tax revenues), as well as the positive economic impact of adoptions, a community cannot afford not to embrace No Kill. View, print, or download the FREE guides to learn more: |
|
Case Study: Austin, TX
A 2017 study out of the University of Denver found that the total dollar value of additional spending and other economic impact realized by the City of Austin, TX, between 2010 - 2016 as a result of passing a No Kill ordinance was $157,452,503, with an investment of just over $30,000,000 — a return on investment of over 400%. And, the study authors note, that’s “the most conservative possible measure of the data.” In other words, the true economic benefit is likely to be much higher.
It also brought new businesses like Google to Austin and improved overall civic health and engagement: "An additional benefit appears to be the positive contribution of Austin’s progressive animal welfare policies to its brand equity. This impact is important as municipalities compete with each other to attract employee demographics that in turn draw new business and new economic growth to their area. Although not included in the final economic impact calculation, the potential impacts of progressive animal welfare policies on larger social and environmental outcomes, including public health, social capital, and community engagement, have important implications for Austin’s ability to promote and sustain the health and well-being of both its human and animal residents."
The conclusion? Not only is No Kill cost effective, it creates an economic windfall.
It also brought new businesses like Google to Austin and improved overall civic health and engagement: "An additional benefit appears to be the positive contribution of Austin’s progressive animal welfare policies to its brand equity. This impact is important as municipalities compete with each other to attract employee demographics that in turn draw new business and new economic growth to their area. Although not included in the final economic impact calculation, the potential impacts of progressive animal welfare policies on larger social and environmental outcomes, including public health, social capital, and community engagement, have important implications for Austin’s ability to promote and sustain the health and well-being of both its human and animal residents."
The conclusion? Not only is No Kill cost effective, it creates an economic windfall.
Case Study: Marquette, MI
In 2006, the Upper Peninsula Animal Welfare Shelter (UPAWS), the open admission shelter which serves Marquette, MI, was killing 64% of animals and on the verge of bankruptcy when it chose to embrace the No Kill philosophy. At the time, they were very close to ceasing operations and had little to lose: if they continued on the path they were on, they would have to close their doors. You can read about their transformation by clicking here.
Since that time, the number of animals saved rather than killed has increased dramatically. Immediately after announcing its No Kill mission, UPAWS saved 93%. It has been steadily increasing. In 2015, UPAWS saved 97% of dogs, 96% of cats, and 97% of rabbits, hamsters, ferrets, and other animals.
What did it cost? When UPAWS was killing 64% of the animals, they spent $190.85 per animal. Now saving over 95%, they spend $207.58. At the same time, however, they lost $178,636 in adoption revenue when they were killing the animals and it would only have cost them $15,660 more to actually save them. But that’s not at all: while the cost per animal went up slightly (8%), so did revenue: an overall increase of 61%.
The conclusion? We can afford to save them all.
Since that time, the number of animals saved rather than killed has increased dramatically. Immediately after announcing its No Kill mission, UPAWS saved 93%. It has been steadily increasing. In 2015, UPAWS saved 97% of dogs, 96% of cats, and 97% of rabbits, hamsters, ferrets, and other animals.
What did it cost? When UPAWS was killing 64% of the animals, they spent $190.85 per animal. Now saving over 95%, they spend $207.58. At the same time, however, they lost $178,636 in adoption revenue when they were killing the animals and it would only have cost them $15,660 more to actually save them. But that’s not at all: while the cost per animal went up slightly (8%), so did revenue: an overall increase of 61%.
The conclusion? We can afford to save them all.
Case Study: Oklahoma City, OK
A 2017 study out of the University of Denver found that the total dollar value of additional spending and other economic impact that Oklahoma City would realize if it builds a new pet adoption center/animal shelter would amount to $118,566,405 over a five year period. It would also result in increased rates of volunteering/community engagement, increased brand equity for the city, and improved public health.
The conclusion? The proposed animal shelter "would have an overwhelmingly positive economic and community impact on both the people and homeless companion animals."
The conclusion? The proposed animal shelter "would have an overwhelmingly positive economic and community impact on both the people and homeless companion animals."
Case Study: Polk County, FL
A 2016 Florida Southern College study of the impact of the SPCA of Florida on the regional economy found that for every $1 in revenue generated by the SPCA, $1.67 was created in the regional economy.
On top of that, the SPCA’s adoption center generates over $5.7 million yearly in economic impact (as adopters spend money on veterinary care, pet supplies, shop while in the area, and more), has provided approximately one additional employee to each of Polk County’s 179 for-profit veterinarians, and helps reduce intakes and costs at the local municipal shelter.
Overall, from 2010-2015, the SPCA had an overall regional economic impact of $71 million.
The 2016 analysis is only the latest to prove that saving lives not only makes ethical sense. It makes dollars and cents.
On top of that, the SPCA’s adoption center generates over $5.7 million yearly in economic impact (as adopters spend money on veterinary care, pet supplies, shop while in the area, and more), has provided approximately one additional employee to each of Polk County’s 179 for-profit veterinarians, and helps reduce intakes and costs at the local municipal shelter.
Overall, from 2010-2015, the SPCA had an overall regional economic impact of $71 million.
The 2016 analysis is only the latest to prove that saving lives not only makes ethical sense. It makes dollars and cents.
