Evaluation of a Dog Population Management Intervention: Measuring Indicators of Impact

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Dogs are important companions to people but can also present challenges to the health and safety of communities if their populations are not effectively managed. Poorly managed dog populations can increase the risk of dog bites to people and other animals, spread disease and create a public nuisance. Dog overpopulation can also lead to compromised dog welfare. Dog population management (DPM) interventions are necessary in communities where veterinary services are not available or are not used by dog owners, or where there are large numbers of free-roaming unowned dogs. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of DPM interventions is necessary to ensure they are effective. We evaluated a DPM intervention using readily available data collected from the intervention itself and publicly available data from secondary sources. We show the intervention resulted in significant increases in the proportion of dogs with permanent identification (microchips) and that had been neutered. We also show the intervention was associated with significant reductions in dog attacks and euthanasia of dogs in participating communities across at least three years. The decrease in euthanasia was associated with an increase in the release of dogs by council pounds to other organizations for rehoming. We present additional useful indicators to measure community engagement with caring for dogs and suggest benchmark figures to guide planning and monitoring of similar interventions in future. ABSTRACT: Dogs are important companions to people but can also present challenges to health and safety of communities if their populations are not effectively managed. Dog population management (DPM) is often undertaken by individual dog owners; however, some communities require additional DPM interventions, especially when veterinary services are unavailable or underutilised. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a DPM intervention conducted in 13 communities between September 2016 and November 2019 and assessed the utility of routinely collected data—program metrics and secondary data collected by local governments—to measure indicators of impacts. The intervention resulted in significant increases in the proportion of dogs presenting that were microchipped and surgically sterilised in participating communities. The intervention also resulted in significant reductions in dog attack incidents and euthanasia of dogs in council pounds in communities that participated for three or more years. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of DPM interventions is critical to determine if impacts are being achieved. This study demonstrates the potential benefits of a DPM intervention for community safety and dog welfare and highlights the utility of routinely collected data. We also suggest benchmarks for indicators of community engagement to guide planning and monitoring of similar interventions.