A community-generated problem requires a community-generated solution—and to some people, that means dipping further into municipal coffers to fund housing and field services provided by private organizations. But since local governments rarely pay as much as these services are actually worth, the subject of municipal contracting has long generated heated debate among animal protectionists. While some believe that subsidizing government services is necessary to providing the most humane care possible, others think taxpayers should accept more responsibility for their role in the animal homelessness problem.

A new study puts a fresh spin on the topic by examining whether the animals dropped off at a private humane society by animal control officers actually cost more to care for than pets relinquished by their owners or strays found by citizens.

While previous discussions of the merits and pitfalls of contracting have focused on the average cost to house each animal, the new research suggests that this method may be an oversimplification and recommends instead analyzing cost disparities.

In “Disposition of Shelter Companion Animals From Animal Control Officers, Citizen Finders, and Relinquished by Owners” (Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2004), author and former shelter director Stephen Notaro reports that, at the facility he studied, dogs and cats brought to a private Midwestern shelter by animal control officers were adopted at a lower rate and euthanized at a higher rate than those brought in by good Samaritans or pet owners.

Specifically, dogs brought in by animal control officers spent 64 percent more days in the shelter than dogs surrendered by owners and 16 percent more days than dogs found by citizens. Cats brought in by animal control spent 43 percent more days in the shelter than cats relinquished by owners and 11 percent more days than cats found by citizens.

Dogs brought in by citizens who had found them as strays had the highest proportion of adoptions.

The results aren’t entirely surprising. As Notaro notes, companion animals picked up by ACOs may include a disproportionate number of pets whom good Samaritans have already tried but failed to catch because of fearful or aggressive behaviors. Animal control pickups may also include a larger percentage of pets whose owners allow them to roam without I.D., making a reunion less likely. And many of the cats brought to the shelter by officers may be feral, semi-feral, or “in general, less adoptable,” Notaro writes.

By contrast, animals brought in by citizens usually have to be friendly enough to be approached by the public and transported to the shelter—meaning their adoptability is probably higher than those who require the handling skills of a professional.

While Notaro notes that his findings may be limited to the experience of one humane society in the Midwest, he stresses that the data may be useful to other facilities with similar patterns of disposition. If a shelter is spending excess time and resources on animal-control dropoffs with behavior issues and health problems that expose more adoptable pets to diseases, the organization should be duly compensated, he says.

“Budgets awarded to humane societies should reflect the extra burden assumed in providing shelter to these companion animals and protect[ing] the citizens of the area,” Notaro writes. “Humane societies with boarding contracts for animal control services may deserve to receive higher levels of compensation for handling these more difficult dogs and cats and the related issues in dealing with the caregivers of impounded and lost animals.”