In this study, the 10 largest US cities (measured by population) are compared by analyzing their overall well- being in relation to their respective investment in Animal Care and Control Functions (ACCF). The results of this study will prove that there is a correlation between the aforementioned investment and the overall well-being of the city’s population. This paper will not suggest that there is a causal relationship between the two variables. The purpose of this paper is to compel the city of Philadelphia, which has the lowest-quality of well-being and the lowest investment in their ACCF, to recognize this correlation, understand the ways that improving animal welfare can improve human well-being, and encourage Philadelphia’s governing body to increase their investment in its animal control function. In this article, we will present a brief history of Philadelphia’s animal care and control function, display the inadequate funding of that function as well as the poor quality of well-being experienced by Philadelphians. Finally, we will propose a way through which both animal welfare and human well-being can be improved through increased investment in the city’s animal care and control function.

1. The Well-Being of a City and
Animal Shelter Funding
An In-Depth Look Inside Philadelphia’s TragicAnimal
Control Function and How it can be Saved
Douglas M. Ross, CPA
Founder & CEO, Aces United LLC
Table of Contents
I. Abstract
II. Introduction
i. A History of Philadelphia’s Animal Care and Control
Function
ii. Philadelphia’s Underfunded Animal Control Function
iii. The Well-Being of Philadelphians
III. Results and Analysis
IV. The Animal Welfare and Human Well-Being Connection
V. Shared Solutions to Animal and Human Maltreatment
i. Education
ii. Volunteerism
iii. Resource Availability
VI. Conclusion

2. Page 1 of 9
I. Abstract
In this study, the 10 largest US cities (measured by
population) are compared by analyzing their overall well-
being in relation to their respective investment in Animal
Care and Control Functions (ACCF). The results of this
study will prove that there is a correlation between the
aforementioned investment and the overall well-being of
the city’s population. This paper will not suggest that there
is a causal relationship between the two variables. The
purpose of this paper is to compel the city of Philadelphia,
which has the lowest-quality of well-being and the lowest
investment in their ACCF, to recognize this correlation,
understand the ways that improving animal welfare can
improve human well-being, and encourage Philadelphia’s
governing body to increase their investment in its animal
control function. In this article, we will present a brief
history of Philadelphia’s animal care and control function,
display the inadequate funding of that function as well as
the poor quality of well-being experienced by
Philadelphians. Finally, we will propose a way through
which both animal welfare and human well-being can be
improved through increased investment in the city’s animal
care and control function.
II. Introduction
When compared to the 10 largest cities in the US,
Philadelphia (ranking 5th
in population) provides the lowest
amount of funding to its ACCF. The analysis offered in this
paper will also support the argument that of the 10 largest
cities, Philadelphia offers the lowest quality of well-being to
its human residents. These two variables, while lacking an
obvious correlation, they do in fact pose a number of
possibilities for a city official to consider: Can the well-
being of a city’s neglected animal population be directly
related to the well-being of its citizens? Does the
inadequate funding of a city’s animal shelter shine a light on
poorly managed city funds? Is there a connection between
an ACCF’s ability to care for its neglected animal population
(which is largely determined by a well-funded Primary
Intake Shelter (PIS)) and the treatment of its
underprivileged human population?
i. A History of Philadelphia’s Animal Care &
Control Function
The City of Philadelphia has had a unique and complex
relationship with its neglected animal population for most
of the past two decades. In the 30 years leading up to 2002,
Philadelphia had a long-standing contract in place with the
1
A common misperception is that all “SPCA’s” are related;
however, the Pennsylvania SPCA is an independent organization
and is not a branch of any other humane society.
Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (PSPCA)1
to serve as its PIS. In 2002, Philadelphia
was faced with losing the services of the PSPCA due to
funding issues and the city’s unwillingness to adopt the
PSPCA’s pit bull policy (Philadelphia refused to outlaw the
breed while it was the PSPCA’s policy to euthanize them).
With the PSPCA’s departure, Philadelphia was forced to
quickly put a shelter operation in place. The solution
resulted in the formation of the Philadelphia Animal Care
and Control Association
(PACCA), which fell under
control of the Philadelphia
Department of Public Health.
The building that PACCA
operated out of was the facility
that the PSPCA had previously
utilized as an intake shelter. It
was not equipped to handle
the full scope of services of a
fully-functioning animal
control shelter at the time. As
such, that building had to be immediately retrofitted to
accommodate the day to day shelter operations. When
looking at our current situation, it is important to
contemplate this hasty transition. The old PSPCA facility
was not designed with forethought about the space and
personnel needed to maintain a high life-saving rate.
Suddenly, programs centered on adoptions, fostering and
expanded clinic services like spaying and neutering,
previously considered programs the PSPCA would oversee,
were now the responsibility
of PACCA. The retrofitting of
the facility involved the
installation of used kennel
runs (which are now 14 years
older than when they were
installed). Under the initial
administration of PACCA,
the shelter was described as
a “grisly murder mill”2
until
2004 when Daily News’ Stu
Bykofsky wrote a five-part
exposé on the shelter. Bykofsky’s work led to a reformist
administration of PACCA between 2005 and 2008. In 2009
the PSPCA, under new leadership, took back the city
contract to operate as the city’s primary intake shelter.
2
The (Scary) Truth About Cats and Dogs. April 21, 2009.
Philadelphia Weekly

3. Page 2 of 9
The chaotic transition of responsibilities shifting from
PACCA to the PSCPA led to the dissolution of PACCA and
the facility in which they operated was (once again) taken
over by the PSPCA. In 2011, it was determined that the
PSPCA’s contract with the city of Philadelphia would
terminate on March 31, 2012. As a response to this, the
Animal Care and Control Team of Philadelphia (ACCT) was
incorporated as a 501(c)(3) in 2011 and they took over the city
contract in 2012, which they hold to this day.
As we can see, the Animal Care and Control Functions
(ACCF) in Philadelphia have changed frequently, and often
abruptly, over the past 15 years. Placing the complexity and
politicking of these transactions aside, it is important to
note two things:
1. The facility in which ACCT currently operates has
been a constant variable in the animal welfare
equation. The facility was arguably inadequate when it
was implemented in 2002 and undoubtedly inadequate
to handle the transition in 2012. Little of the
infrastructure has changed since conception, leading
to its current decaying conditions (read further in
details).
2. The allocation of city funds to its ACCF take on a new
meaning when considering the change from the
PSPCA to the Animal Care and Control Team of
Philadelphia (ACCT).
According to their 2011 Form 990 (the final year of their
contract with the city of Philadelphia), the PSPCA reported
$13.2 million in annual revenues. Of this, $3.4 million was
provided by the city contract. In 2011, the PSPCA reported
an intake of 41,162 canines and felines. According to their
2012 Form 990 (without the city contract), the PSPCA
reported annual revenues of $10.7 million of which $1.1
million was provided by the city of Philadelphia (reflecting
the portion of the year that they still held the contract). The
PSPCA’s 2012 intake was reported as 7,789 canines and
felines. The purpose of this illustration is to show that the
PSPCA had a significantly larger sum of money to handle
Philadelphia’s booming neglected animal count. The
PSPCA’s animal intake to funds available ratio skyrocketed
from $259 to $1,694 as a result of the transition.
3
"American FactFinder – Results". United States Census Bureau,
Population Division.
ii. Philadelphia’s Underfunded ACCF Function
As mentioned earlier, when compared to the 10 largest
cities in the US, Philadelphia provides the smallest amount
of funding to its ACCF.
This statement can be supported by analyzing three
variables:
1. The population of the 10 largest cities as of July 1, 2015,
as estimated by the United States Census Bureau3
.
2. The amount of money allocated to the ACCF in a city’s
annual budget.
a. It is important to note that every city in this study has
a designated primary intake shelter (PIS). The PIS is
the first destination for any animal obtained by law
enforcement and required to take in any animal
surrendered by its owner. The PIS provides a number
of lifesaving services to the animals in a community
including vaccinations, micro-chipping, neuter/spay
operations, and licensing. Without exception, the
funds allocated in a city’s budget to support their ACCF
benefit the designated PIS.
b. A city’s ACCF manifests itself in one of two ways:
i. The city designates a non-profit, 501(c)(3)
organization to serve as its PIS (normally
through a bidding process) and provides
annual funding to that organization.
ii. The city sustains a department within the
Mayor’s office; making the ACCF a branch of
city government.4
3. The number of “neglected” canines and felines taken in
by a city’s primary intake shelter (PIS).
i. For this study, a “neglected” animal refers to one
that has been abandoned, abused, surrendered,
confiscated by authorities, or stray.
4
Of the 10 largest cities in the US, three have elected to utilize a
non-profit and seven directly incorporate animal control into
their governing body.

4. Page 3 of 9
iii. The Well-Being of Philadelphians
Philadelphia offers the lowest quality of “well-being” to its
residents. “Well-being” can be defined as a state of safety,
comfort, and financial health. For the purposes of this
paper, a city’s overall “well-being” is determined by
analyzing a number of measured variables:
1. City Crime Index5
2. Poverty Rate6
3. Homelessness Per Capita7
4. Mean Home Price8
5. Unemployment Rate9
6. Median Household Income10
7. Percentage of Population without High School
Diploma11
8. Percentage of Population without Health insurance12
9. US News & World Report Z-Score13
III. Results and Analysis
The results of the study’s calculations and scoring are
charted in Table 5 below:
Table 5. AWI Comparison by WBI Score Ranking
The results are displayed in order of a city’s Well-Being
Index ranking, from lowest (most desirable) to highest (least
desirable). We can reasonably conclude that there is a
5
Obtained from City-Data.com, their Crime Index is a calculation
of the number of Murders, Rapes, Robberies, Assaults,
Burglaries, Thefts, Auto Thefts, and Arson per 100,000 residents.
6
Obtained from the City-Data.com report for the year-ending
2015.
7
Obtained from the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development for 2015.
https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/4832/2015-ahar-part-1-
pit-estimates-of-homelessness/
8
Obtained from the City-Data.com report for the year-ending
2015.
9
Obtained from the City-Data.com report for adults over the age
of 25 in 2015.
correlation between a city’s WBI Score and their Animal
Welfare Index.
While there may not be an alarming relationship between
these two variables we can make a few meaningful
observations:
1. The cities at the higher-end of the WBI spectrum have
better funded ACCFs than the cities on the lower end.
2. Los Angeles County could be considered an outlier in
this study. By far, they provide the most funding to their
ACCF. However, we should take into account that they
have the second highest euthanasia rate in the country.
This raises a number of other questions surrounding the
overall efficiency of their shelter’s operations.
3. The City of Philadelphia has an extremely low AWI score
and when taking into account the correlation between
WBI and AWI, it is not surprising that the city’s residents
experience the lowest quality of well-being.
Analyzing the graphically illustrated results in Table 5.1
provides us with a much clearer understanding of the
relationship between a community’s well-being and its
correlation to animal welfare. The line in Table 6 displaying
the trending average of the results shows an obvious
relationship.
IV. The Animal Welfare and Human Well-Being Connection
The relationship between the human and animal condition
has been studied for decades. While studies have confirmed
the connection between low socioeconomics and high
prevalence of animal abuse and neglect, these studies have
not explored the role that city-funded animal shelters play
in this relationship. Accordingly, this section will offer a
relatively new way of thinking about the role city-funded
animal shelters play.
In 2010, Jodi Levinthal, a University of Pennsylvania PhD,
wrote a dissertation entitled “The Community Context of
Animal and Human Maltreatment.14
. Her study offers an
10
Obtained from the City-Data.com report for the year-ending
2015.
11
Obtained from the City-Data.com report for the year-ending
2015 noting the number of adults over the age of 25 that have not
obtained a high-school (or equivalent) diploma.
12
Data obtained from a survey conducted by Enroll America in
partnership with Civis Analysis.
13
US News & World Report 2016 Report Data. Weighted value
calculation of Job Market Index, Value Index, Quality of Life
Index, Desirability Index, & Net Migration
14
Levinthal, Jodi, "The Community Context of Animal and Human
Maltreatment: Is there a Relationship between Animal Maltreatment
and Human Maltreatment: Does Neighborhood Context Matter?"
City Rank WBI Score Animal Welfare Index
San Diego, CA 1 31 38.25
San Jose, CA 2 34 41.91
New York City, NY 3 45 48.62
Houston, TX 4 52 40.81
Chicago, IL 5 56 25.60
San Antonio, TX 6 56 38.64
Dallas, TX 7 61 23.89
Phoenix, AZ 8 62 29.84
Los Angeles, CA 9 71 41.17
Philadelphia, PA 10 75 15.23

5. Page 4 of 9
unprecedented level of research demonstrating the ways
that animal neglect directly correlates with demographic
and neighborhood factors as well as cultural and structural
aspects of block groups. Overall, her research and analysis
suggests that social disorganization leads to animal neglect.
The fact that her dissertation focused on the city of
Philadelphia makes this information all the more relevant.
Levinthal’s dissertation indicates that family violence
(which is associated with a number of other social problems
including teenage pregnancy, runaway and homeless youth,
substance abuse, and crime) is linked to animal abuse.
Levinthal states, “either form of abuse can be a strong
predictor of the other. Types of crime such as burglary and
graffiti positively correlate with animal abuse, as does the
overall crime factor.”
It is important to understand that negative human
relationships and interactions often result in the
mistreatment and neglect of animals and vice versa.
Therefore, it’s reasonable to surmise that if the Philadelphia
city government focused on improving the relationship
between its human and neglected animal population while
bettering the conditions of its neglected animals, the
conditions of the human population of Philadelphia would
similarly improve.
V. Shared Solutions to Animal and Human Maltreatment
i. Education
The origin of a city’s economic and socioeconomic plight
can typically be traced back to the presence of, or lack of,
quality education offered by a community. Children learn
many critical life lessons in the classroom outside of core
curriculum (e.g. Mathematics, Language Arts, Science, etc.).
These lessons include, but are not limited to, compassion,
respect, and responsibility for themselves, their neighbors,
and the place that they live. Can we assume that crime is
often the result of a breakdown in one of these areas? Is it
fair to say that a person that has respect and a strong sense
of responsibility to their community is less likely to
vandalize their city’s property? Research confirms this
supposition and therefore we can similarly conclude that a
person who is compassionate and respectful to those
around them is less likely to physically assault a stranger. A
city cannot and should not expect for our city’s youth to
learn these lessons at home and on the street.
(2010). Publicly accessible Penn Dissertations. Paper 274.
http://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/274/
The often overlooked relationship between humans and
animals offers a unique opportunity to enrich a city’s youth
(and even adult) population through increased education
focused on animal welfare.
In Stephanie Itle-Clark’s article “Increasing Student
Engagement through Animal Welfare Education and Service”15
student engagement is driven by three factors: 1) underlying
need for competence 2) the extent to which students
experience membership in the school, and 3) the
authenticity of the task they are given. Animal welfare
education and correlated service-learning can address all
three of these factors. “Learner interest in animals and
animal welfare issues… is reported by both students and
teachers alike to be high. Utilization of a high-interest topic
provides traditional pedagogy a set of teeth that supports
active engagement and builds the foundation for increased
engagement and success.” By enhancing our schools’ “core”
curriculum with animal welfare education, a city can
accomplish a number of educational goals as well as rebuild
student trust in the education system.
Currently in the US, there are many humane societies and
animal rescue group developing and providing precisely
this curriculum to public schools. Using the Human Society
of Southern Arizona as an example, they provide teachers
with presentations, including but not limited to:
• Animal Welfare at a Glance
• School Based Community Serve Projects
• Behind the Scenes Shelter Tours
• Exploring Animal Careers
These incredibly useful educational tools not only teach
students about the important role their local animal shelter
plays but they inherently develop a deeper sense of respect
and compassion for the community’s institutions. While
schools across the country certainly grapple with finding
“room” for these non-traditional supplementary
curriculums amidst strict testing standards, the lifetime
benefits of these programs are proving to be consistently
compelling and worthwhile.
It would be challenging to identify a better institution to
develop and distribute this curriculum to a community than
15
Itle-Clark, S. (2014). Increasing student engagement through
animal welfare education and service. Living Education
eMagazine, 42-43, 57-58.

6. Page 5 of 9
the city animal shelter. As this paper will discuss in greater
depth below, an underfunded animal shelter that is barely
capable of providing the basic services to its homeless and
neglected animals cannot begin to explore this area without
increased funding.
ii. Volunteerism
The value of volunteers in a community is immeasurable.
The organizations that provide opportunities to volunteer
are key players in the local economy, reducing the burden
of government spending and investing in people through
training, boosting skills and improving the employability of
people on the margins of the labor market.
Volunteerism also plays a key role in relationships shared
within a community. Volunteer activities bring together
people who might not otherwise have contact with one
another, serving as a bridge between socioeconomic
divides. Alexis de Toqueville (1988)16
, in his classic study of
American democracy, saw volunteering as a form of civic
engagement through which individuals can make
meaningful contributions to their own visions of societal
well-being.
Not all forms of civic engagement are equal in nature.
Volunteers that work with pets and other animals have been
shown to enjoy a variety of unique benefits, including but
not limited to: decreased likelihood to suffer from
depression, lowered blood pressure, and increased levels of
relaxation.
Volunteers in an animal shelter environment experience
emotional situations that are not found in other volunteer
capacities. In an animal shelter setting, volunteers
encounter an overabundance of clients (animals) on a daily
basis. With such high numbers of animals, both staff and
volunteers are overwhelmed.17
For this as well as many
other reasons, it is important for a city’s animal shelter to
have an enhanced volunteer recruitment and retention
program. While there is a tremendous amount of guidance
available on how to develop and implement these programs,
doing so is complex and requires additional funding to hire
the individuals necessary.
16
Eleanor Brown, “Assessing the Value of Volunteer Activity”,
1999; http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/28/1/3.full.pdf
17
Davis, Rebecca, "Understanding Volunteerism in an Animal
Shelter Environment: Improving Volunteer Retention" (2013).
College of Professional Studies Professional Projects. Paper 54.
iii. Intake Prevention and Pet Retention Programs
It has been argued that the most effective way that an
animal shelter can decrease animal neglect within a
community is to implement well-functioning intake
prevention and pet retention programs.
Thousands of animals are abandoned and surrendered
every year because owners cannot afford to care for their
pet. There are a variety of ways that a city’s ACCF can keep
pets in homes and out of shelters (where they are using
space, resources, and are at risk for euthanasia).
These programs include providing city residents with:
• A pet food pantry that assists those with a low or fixed income
• Free of charge spay/neuter services
• Medical care that would otherwise be unaffordable to an owner
and result in abandonment.
The extent to which an animal shelter can offer these
necessary services to a community is entirely dependent on
their available funds. Many intake prevention and pet
retention programs fall outside the scope of “core services”
that an animal shelter is responsible for providing under a
city contract, however, many city shelters have robust
programs in place due to adequate funding provided by the
municipality.
VI. Conclusion
In this study, we have researched the largest cities in the US
with a focus on the current situation in Philadelphia and
their approach to animal welfare and control. It would be
reasonable to analyze Philadelphia’s AWI results and
suggest that the Animal Care and Control Team of
Philadelphia (ACCT) is extremely efficient. The results do,
in fact, support this argument. Considering the large
quantity of neglected animals taken in by ACCT, they have
been able to demonstrate strong results in several areas.
Their adoption rate (34%) is slightly above the average for
the cities researched18
. Philadelphia also has a strong
network of rescue organizations that pull from their PIS. If
it were not for this exceptional network, the most
significant being the Pennsylvania Animal Welfare Society
(PAWS) organization, we would likely see significantly
higher euthanasia figures.
http://epublications.marquette.edu/cps_professional/54/
18
San Diego has the highest rate of adoption (53%) and Chicago
the lowest (6%).

7. Page 6 of 9
What the results of this study do not describe are the
decrepit conditions inside of Philadelphia ACCT. As
mentioned earlier in this study, the kennel runs installed at
Philadelphia’s PIS are ancient and poorly functioning. These
kennel runs have not been replaced since their installation
in 2002 (and it’s important to remember they were not
brand-new even when installed). The importance of this
fact cannot be overstated. The well-being of an animal
currently sheltered in the ACCT facility heavily relies on the
structural integrity of the kennel it is kept in. A well-
functioning kennel effectively drains animal fecal matter. A
shelter animal spends nearly 100% if it’s time inside of its
kennel, eating, sleeping, defecating, and urinating in a space
about as a large as a living room closet. When the integrity
of that kennel is jeopardized, these animals are susceptible
to a wide-variety of disease and infection, which not only
makes their life miserable but makes it far more difficult for
them to be adopted (adopters tend to want to adopt healthy
animals). While this study has not included observations on
the condition of other city shelters, it would be difficult to
imagine a more desperate situation than the one currently
being experienced by ACCT.
There are both economic and socioeconomic benefits that
can be realized in Philadelphia under the administration of
ACCT. However, in order for these benefits to be realized
funding must be allocated to improve the programs
currently in place and implement those which are not.
Having a well-functioning and well-maintained animal
control facility is paramount.
Where can blame be fairly placed for this crisis? We know
that we cannot place it on the countless number of
volunteers that spend their time at ACCT working to
improve the lives of these animals. Likewise, it would not be
fair to place the blame on ACCT’s administrators or Board
of Directors. These individuals operate a city’s primary
intake shelter with inadequate funding that barely covers
the essential costs of running the shelter. The concept of
implementing critical programs such as various
community-based education campaigns, fund raising
initiatives to engage philanthropists, and exceptional
medical protocols to treat sick or mistreated animals is
near-impossible with only $4.5 million in annual funding.
As discussed earlier in this paper, the City of Philadelphia’s
response to losing the PSPCA (and its nearly $14 million in
annual revenues) as its PIS in 2012 was to transfer
19
http://www.phila.gov/Newsletters/MayorsOperatingBudgetInBri
efFY2016.pdf
responsibility to a poorly-equipped facility and provide it
with a despicable amount of money to operate. This is
unacceptable and should lead the citizens of Philadelphia to
question many other issues surrounding their community’s
well-being. Again, of the top-ten cities in the United States
Philadelphia has the 2nd
highest rate of crime and poverty
and ranks dead-last in unemployment, median household
income, and mean home values. It would be safe to say that
our city’s inability to properly allocate funding to its PIS
goes hand-in-hand with its inability to provide its citizens
with a high-quality of well-being.
In 2015, the City of Philadelphia reported nearly $6 billion in
annual revenues (of which $3.4 billion was procured
through taxes). Philadelphia ACCT receives .08% of this
annual funding every year. To put it another way, for every
$1,000 our city receives they spend 76 cents on a very
important city function, saving the lives of neglected
animals. This is unacceptable.
A common argument in defense of Philadelphia is their lack
of available funding. How can our city procure the funding
to adequately fund its city animal shelter when it is faced
when other budgetary concerns such as education, public
safety, and economic development? Every citizen of
Philadelphia should invest the time to review the Mayor’s
Operating Budget in Brief for FY201619
and see for yourself
where your tax dollars are spent. The budget describes a
number of “key” investments for FY2016 including:
• $3.9 million for the Department of Parks and Recreation to
expand the Summer Jobs program to help with youth
unemployment.
• $3.6 million for the Police Department to begin
implementing the use of body cameras ($500,000) and for
ballistic vests, tasers, and ammunition for additional
training exercises ($3.1 million).
• $8.0 million to the Department of Fleet Management
(which is already allocated $61 million from the city
budget) to replace “old” vehicles.
• $1.1 million to the Commerce Department to fund a
program with the purpose of keeping Philadelphian’s from
leaving Philadelphia after they graduate college.
This small sample of city investments is not listed to
undermine their importance. Rather, they are displayed to
demonstrate that there is, in fact, money available that
would have a major impact on the well-being of our city’s
neglected animal population. The conversation does not
need to involve the trade-off between public education and
animal welfare. Fiscally speaking, that would be an apple to

8. Page 7 of 9
oranges comparison. Similarly, Philadelphia ACCT does not
need to be included in the discussion about public safety;
that department received $1.32 billion from the city this
year.
In summary, Philadelphia has a long history of caring for its
neglected animals. With the city’s primary intake shelter on
the verge of collapse, now is the time to revisit this
conversation and ask ourselves: Can Philadelphia improve
in this area? What effect would this improvement have on
the city’s other issues? Can Philadelphia do better?
VI. Methodology
The data-driven portion of this study will involve the
analysis of two sets of figures commonly used to measure
the strength of an animal shelter and well-being of a
community.
For the analysis of shelters, we are taking into consideration
the reported annual revenue20
, intake figures for canines
and felines21
, and the number of euthanized canines and
felines. This data is charted in Table 1. To analyze the well-
being of a city, we considered measures of socioeconomic
indication that are normally taken into account when
describing the strength and welfare of a community. This
data is illustrated in Table 3.
In this study, the calculations and figures presented are
meant to impartially and accurately reflect the adequacy of
a shelter’s funding. The result will ultimately be an Animal
Welfare Index (AWI) score. To determine this, we need to
first establish the number of neglected animals (i.e. those
taken in by a shelter) per resident of the city. This is
illustrated as the Person Per Intake (PPI) figure in Table 2.
That calculation is divided by 10 for no reason other than to
make the resulting calculation easier for the reader to
interpret. Next, we determined the portion of the municipal
budget allocated to a city’s PIS on a per capita basis by
dividing the total PIS revenue by the city’s population. By
multiplying a city’s Adjusted PPI by the budgetary allocation
per capita we can gain a strong sense of how much funding
is provided to its PIS as it relates to the city’s population and
shelter intake. This is illustrated in Table 2 as the Adjusted
Revenue per Capita figure.
Many shelters determine the adequacy of their funding by
simply dividing annual revenues by the city’s population.
While this appears to be sound logic, it is faulty. Analyzing the
20
Revenue figures are obtained from either the city budget (for
governmental entities) or the most recent Form 990 filed with the
IRS (for entities claiming 501(c)(3) status.
Animal Care Centers of New York (ACC) emphasizes the
necessity for this alternative calculation. If one were to judge
a city’s funding based solely on a per capita basis, it would
appear that New York City provides very little funding to their
PIS. This would not be a fair or accurate assessment due to the
fact that the city’s massive population does not directly
correlate with its neglected animal population. Furthermore,
there is very little evidence to support that there is any
correlation between the size of a city and its neglected animal
population.
The final variable taken into consideration when calculating
a city’s AWI score is the euthanasia rate of the PIS. The
rationale employed is that programs that do not involve
euthanizing animals require more funding than procedural
euthanasia. As such, this should be taken into consideration
when determining the adequacy of funding for a city’s PIS.
We multiply the percentage of neglected animals not
euthanized by the adjusted revenue per capita figure to
arrive at our AWI score. We can assume the cities with the
highest AWI scores allocated an adequate amount of
funding to their PIS.
There are many ways to statistically measure the well-being
of a city and this study does not insist on the supremacy of
one over another. Our comparison illustrated in Table 4 will
produce a Well-Being Index (WBI) score. For each of the
aforementioned indicators, we ranked each city on a scale
of one to ten; one being most desirable, ten being least. The
summation of the rankings provides us with the WBI score
with the lowest scoring cities providing the highest quality
of well-being to its citizens.
21
Wildlife statistics (normally reported) are not taken into
consideration for this study due to their de minimus and
widespread nature.

9. Page 8 of 9
Table 1. Data Pertaining to the Funding, Intake, and Euthanasia for the Ten Largest US Cities.
Table 2. The Calculation of a City’s Animal Welfare Index (AWI)
Table 3. Socioeconomic Data Compiled for the Ten Largest US Cities
City Persons per Intake PPI%100 Revenue/Capita Adjusted Revenue/Capita Non-Kill % Animal Welfare Index (AWI)
1 New York City, NY 292.83 29.28 $1.93 $56.44 86% 48.62
2 Los Angeles, CA 63.82 6.38 $9.54 $60.88 68% 41.17
3 Chicago, IL 168.68 16.87 $2.10 $35.36 72% 25.60
4 Houston, TX 88.56 8.86 $6.11 $54.14 75% 40.81
5 Philadelphia, PA 66.40 6.64 $2.95 $19.56 78% 15.23
6 Phoenix, AZ 43.36 4.34 $8.95 $38.80 77% 29.84
7 San Antonio, TX 52.09 5.21 $8.53 $44.44 87% 38.64
8 San Diego, CA 71.51 7.15 $6.42 $45.91 83% 38.25
9 Dallas, TX 49.23 4.92 $8.51 $41.90 57% 23.89
10 San Jose, CA 68.60 6.86 $7.46 $51.20 82% 41.91
Key Indicator NYC LA Chicago Houston Philadelphia Phoenix San Antonio San Diego Dallas San Jose
City-Data.com Crime Index 246.5 265.8 436.5 534.5 508.3 390.9 454.6 211.5 409.3 253.2
Poverty Rate 20.7% 30.1% 23.0% 22.4% 26.3% 23.6% 19.6% 15.8% 24.4% 12.8%
Homelessness per Capita 881 1,037 249 201 383 360 197 627 242 638
CCSU Literacy Ranking 20 63 33 60 35 65 70 31 44 39
Mean Home Price 652,456.00$ 615,283.00$ 276,694.00$ 218,032.00$ 136,800.00$ 214,846.00$ 143,300.00$ 542,854.00$ 240,562.00$ 617,104.00$
Unemployment Rate 8.2% 9.1% 10.4% 6.3% 11.3% 7.4% 6.4% 7.7% 6.4% 8.1%
Median Household Income 52,223.00$ 48,466.00$ 47,099.00$ $45,353 36,836.00$ 46,601.00$ 45,399.00$ 63,456.00$ 41,978.00$ 80,977.00$
Did not Graduate (HS) 19.6% 25.4% 17.8% 22.8% 17.8% 18.8% 17.2% 12.5% 25.0% 17.7%
Without Health Insurance 5% 12% 9% 6% 12% 12% 15% 10% 17% 7%
Z-Score (U.S. News & World Report) 5.6 6.0 5.9 6.9 6.1 6.6 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.1
City 2015 Pop. ACCF Status Total Revenue Intake (D) Intake (C) Total Intake Kill # (D) Kill # (C) Total Kill % Kill
1 New York City, NY 8,550,405 501(c)(3) 16,480,268$ 9,443 19,756 29,199 951 3,094 4,045 14%
2 Los Angeles, CA 3,971,883 Municipal Branch 37,889,322$ 33,459 28,775 62,234 4,842 15,310 20,152 32%
3 Chicago, IL 2,720,546 Municipal Branch 5,703,307$ 9,158 6,970 16,128 3,306 1,148 4,454 28%
4 Houston, TX 2,296,224 501(c)(3) 14,036,665$ 17,033 8,895 25,928 3,982 2,403 6,385 25%
5 Philadelphia, PA 1,567,442 501(c)(3) 4,618,025$ 8,670 14,935 23,605 2,108 3,119 5,227 22%
6 Phoenix, AZ 1,563,025 Municipal Branch 13,987,717$ 32,014 4,033 36,047 8,324 23%
7 San Antonio, TX 1,469,845 Municipal Branch 12,538,983$ 28,215 3,680 13%
8 San Diego, CA 1,394,928 Municipal Branch 8,956,214$ 11,321 8,187 19,508 1,064 2,192 3,256 17%
9 Dallas, TX 1,300,092 Municipal Branch 11,064,301$ 26,407 11,353 43%
10 San Jose, CA 1,026,908 Municipal Branch 7,664,063$ 6,114 8,855 14,969 941 1,775 2,716 18%
26,407 11,353
8,324
28,215 3,680

10. Page 9 of 9
Table 4. The Well-Being Index (WBI) Calculation
Table 5.1. Graphical Illustration of Community Well-Being and its Relationship to Shelter Investment
Key Indicator NYC LA Chicago Houston Philadelphia Phoenix San Antonio San Diego Dallas San Jose
City-Data.com Crime Index 2 4 7 10 9 5 8 1 6 3
Poverty Rate 4 10 6 5 9 7 3 2 8 1
Homelessness per Capita 9 10 4 2 6 5 1 7 3 9
CCSU Literacy Ranking 1 8 3 7 4 9 10 2 6 5
Mean Home Price 1 3 5 7 10 8 9 4 6 2
Unemployment Rate 7 8 9 1 10 4 2 5 2 6
Median Household Income 3 4 5 8 10 6 7 2 9 1
Did not Graduate (HS) 7 10 4 8 4 6 2 1 9 3
Without Health Insurance 1 6 4 2 6 6 9 5 10 3
Z-Score (U.S. News & World Report) 10 8 9 2 7 6 5 2 2 1
Well-Being Index (WBI) Score 45 71 56 52 75 62 56 31 61 34
Key Indicator Rankings (1-Most Favorable to 10-Least Favorable) & Well-Being Index (WBI) Score
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Community Well-Being as it Relates to Shelter Investment
WBI Score Animal Welfare Index Trending (W-Score) Trending (AWI)