The RSPCA Has Responded to My Recommendations
They have not made any commitment to change their processes
If you are reading this, then you probably already know the story of how my partner and I fostered a greyhound through RSPCA Victoria— only for this physically healthy dog to be euthanised three weeks after we returned him to the shelter. When we followed up to find out whether he was available for adoption, we were told he was still working with a behaviourist to sort out his anxiety-related issues. In fact, as RSPCA Vic has now confirmed, he was already dead and may never have actually met a behaviourist.
A couple of weeks ago, I requested a meeting with RSPCA Vic senior management, and spoke to them at length about Dash’s particular case and their foster program more generally. I delivered a list of six key recommendations but our conversation uncovered a number of issues not included in these — as I had prepared them before the meeting. They promised to address these discussion points and send me a response by 14th February. True to their word, I received an email two days ago.
I should clarify that the tone of the meeting was constructive — and the stated goal was to work together to make improvements to their foster program. RSPCA Vic apologised for internal failings and communication errors, but are standing by the decision to euthanise Dash on the grounds that they didn’t wish to prolong his suffering due to anxiety.
In their response, RSPCA Vic remain committed to their assessment that euthanasia was necessary — despite admitting a series of failings that led to that decision during the meeting. The email I received, disappointingly, does not refer to the points we discussed in person at all, and strictly addresses my list of recommendations written prior to the meeting.
1. Greater transparency around euthanasia
RSPCA Vic has said they will review their foster care orientation sessions to ensure that euthanasia is communicated as a potential outcome for foster animals — and that they may consider giving information to foster carers about the outcome of the animal. They also point to the limitations of their systems in enabling this, without making any firm commitment.
RSPCA Vic will not be releasing any further information to the public about their euthanasia rates, other than what is already available in their annual reports. I note that the annual report presents this data as a pie chart rather than raw figures.
RSPCA Vic has also stated that will not publicly provide specific reasons for each animal euthanised. I note that a separate report released by RSPCA Australia shows that around 58% of dogs euthanised by RSPCA Victoria are for behavioural reasons.
The Code of Practice under which RSPCA Victoria lists “aggressive, anti-social animals or an animal with known vices such as excessive barking, or habitual escapees” as grounds for euthanasia. Dash displayed none of these traits and I was unable to obtain from RSPCA Vic a comprehensive list of behavioural issues that are used for euthanasia assessment purposes — they have only said that this includes animals that are suffering mentally or physically, or considered dangerous to themselves or others.
2. Adequate support and training for foster carers
RSPCA Vic has said they will review their support and training for foster carers. They have made no commitment about providing any training or more information before the foster period or greater support during the foster period. They have provided no detail about what changes they will make to their onboarding process, despite this being a major point of discussion during the meeting.
3. Flexible foster placement periods
In my recommendations and the meeting, I went to great lengths to explain the flaws within a system where an animal is only fostered for a short period and must be returned to the shelter before adoption. I emphasised that six weeks was in no way long enough for an animal to recover from trauma and display sufficient improvement upon assessment. RSPCA Vic acknowledged the stresses inherent within the shelter environment. I said that, had we been asked, we would have recommended that Dash remain in our foster care and move directly from the foster home to his forever home.
RSPCA Vic’s response to this significant issue was to state that their foster placement periods are already flexible based on the animal’s individual needs — therefore I assume they will not be changing a process which is fundamentally flawed and causes maximum stress to a foster animal. I also assume by this brief response that they are referring to the fact that their foster periods vary: some are as short as two weeks while Dash’s was six weeks.
4. Assessments in a home environment
Further to our discussion around the stress of the shelter environment, I questioned how it makes sense for an animal to be assessed on its suitability for adoption anywhere except in a familiar home environment, with their foster carers present.
RSPCA Vic’s response to this is that the Behaviour Team (who, as confirmed in the meeting, may never actually meet the animal during the assessment process) look at a range of factors, including the animal’s history, behaviour in the shelter, and foster care evaluation forms. They have said the team may seek more information, which might include discussion with previous owners and foster carers. Assessment in the home could be an option if there is conflicting information.
Given the deliberately vague wording of this response, RSPCA Vic is in no way committing to making this a core part of their process, or indeed it ever happening in any individual case.
5. Foster carers given the option to adopt
As far as animal welfare is concerned, my belief is that euthanasia should be an absolute last resort — and certainly not applied where someone is willing and able to adopt the animal. That’s why I recommended that foster carers should always be given the option to adopt rather than see an animal’s life ended.
RSPCA Vic said they have a process for foster carers to express interest in adopting an animal — I note that it still needs to be returned to the shelter first. They have said they will review this process to see how it can be better communicated to foster carers, with the addendum that adoption is not always the best welfare outcome for an animal.
In other words, as I was told by RSPCA Vic, if an animal is assessed as requiring euthanasia, it will be killed even if foster carers want to adopt the animal. The wording of their response suggests that this policy will not change.
6. Increased collaboration with rescue organisations
During our meeting, RSPCA Vic acknowledged that they did not contact any other animal rescue organisations to ask whether they had capacity to take Dash, including at least seven greyhound-specific groups in Melbourne. They made an assumption that these organisations did not have capacity.
In their response, RSPCA Vic maintains that they already work in collaboration with a number of rescue groups — but these partnerships are subject to ongoing review. I note that this response does not commit to any change in their processes and is in direct contradiction with the accounts I’ve received from multiple animal rescue organisations.
RSPCA Vic has signed off their response by assuring me of their wish to improve the foster program to enhance the foster experience and ensure better animal welfare outcomes. I note that according to their own publicly-available reports, and despite resourcing challenges being flagged repeatedly during the meeting, the organisation had a surplus of $10.6 million in 2019 (up from $360,000 the previous year).
Their response entirely omits the main purpose of our meeting, which was to look at how they can better engage foster carers before, during and after the foster process. We talked about how foster carers are uniquely placed to provide RSPCA Vic with an understanding of the experience of living with an animal 24/7 — and that the written evaluation can not possibly capture this.
We also discussed how their current processes do not take into account the emotional connection that a foster carer forms with the animal in their care and that their intentions may actually change as a result — with no direct path to adoption. We spoke of the need for a greater exchange of information between RSPCA Vic and the foster carer — a lengthy discussion at the beginning around the specific foster goals for that animal, and another discussion at the end of the foster period about the best next steps for the animal.
The person who knows the animal best is the foster carer — as RSPCA Vic themselves agreed that shelter staff are unable to spend much time with each animal. And yet the foster carer is expected to drop off the animal they have taken care of in the foyer of an RSPCA facility — handing over three sheets of paper that are supposed to explain the animal’s unique needs and traits without any further discussion around the carer’s meaning or intention in writing these notes.
In Dash’s case, I believed my notes were going to be used by a behaviourist to “work on his issues” — as I was promised. I detailed his issues with that understanding, as well as his improvements and the recommendation that he needed more time. But how can a behaviourist work with a dog they have never even met?
Instead, RSPCA Vic used these three sheets of paper as a signed death warrant. And nothing about their response suggests that this is going to change.
Want to stay up-to-date? Sign up to my newsletter here, check out my website or follow me on Facebook / Twitter / Instagram.
