Linked Administrative Records, Adoption Throughput, and Early Return of Dogs after Adoption in a Rural Animal Shelter: A Single-Shelter Retrospective Study

Abstract

Introduction: Rural, volunteer-intensive dog shelters commonly maintain linked administrative records, yet the utility of those records for daily adoption activity and early post-adoption returns remain unclear. Using records from one rural Kentucky dog shelter, this study characterizes adoption activity and early returns while assessing record completeness and limitations.

Methods: We used linked, de-identified dog records from one rural Kentucky shelter. ‘Placement’ is defined as coded adoption outcome in the event-history file; transfers, foster movements, and return-to-owner events are not counted as placements. The adoption archive covers June 2019 through April 2025 and includes 1,098 adoptions involving 1,017 dogs. For the operations analysis, we reconstructed a daily on-site dog census from the event-history file using a piecewise anchored series with the residual correction distributed linearly across days within each of 10 anchor-defined intervals (11 anchor reports). For the early-return analysis, we restricted the sample to first adoptions with a complete 7-day observation window. Given only 21 observed 7-day return events, we treat all return models as exploratory.

Results: Across 1,581 days in the operations window (490 placement days, 31.0%), higher start-of-day census was associated with greater odds of any placement (odds ratio [OR]: 2.52 per 10 additional dogs, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.66–3.84). Confirmed shelter-wide promotion days were associated with higher odds of any placement (OR: 3.30, 95% CI: 1.86–5.88). In the secondary Poisson rate model for placement counts, the point estimate on promotion days exceeded one (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.96–1.36), but the CI included 1, indicating no clear effect. In the return sample, 21 of 1,014 first adoptions ended in an observed return within 7 days (2.1%); the median time to observed return was 1 day (interquartile range [IQR]: 1–3), so the 7-day window predominantly captures acute placement breakdown. Discount-coded first adoptions had a higher 7-day return rate than non-discount-coded first adoptions (3.3% vs. 1.8%; adjusted OR: 1.98, 95% CI: 0.76–5.13). We interpret all associations descriptively and do not treat them as causal effects.

Conclusion: For this rural Kentucky shelter, the linked records are useful for tracking crowding-related adoption activity, but they support only limited descriptive conclusions about very-early return after adoption. Distinguishing shelter-wide promotions from adoption-level discounts is conceptually important. These two measures overlap partially, and the available records cannot distinguish selective fee waivers from blanket shelter-wide events. Stronger conclusions about placement stability would require clearer fee coding, more detailed return-reason fields, and basic adopter-context measures.