Does a Strict Adoption Policy Actually Save More Animals? The Answer Might Surprise You

We've all heard the saying: "Adopt, don't shop." But what happens when adopting is made so difficult that people give up and go to a breeder instead?

This is one of the biggest — and most under-talked-about — problems in animal rescue today. Strict adoption screening policies, designed with the best of intentions, may actually be costing animals their chance at a loving home.

The Stories We Hear

We regularly hear from people who have experienced real barriers when trying to adopt an animal. Stories like these:

"As a wheelchair user, I applied for 10 dogs with different rescues and was rejected every time because they felt I didn't have the strength to walk the dog. Why can they make judgements on my ability?"

"I was questioned multiple times if I could afford the care. They said I needed to have a partner to ensure I could afford it — being a single parent, they said it was more likely I would give up the animal."

These aren't edge cases. They're patterns. And when people face this kind of judgment, many simply turn to breeders instead — which doesn't help the animals waiting in shelters.

Good Intentions, Harmful Outcomes

Adoption screenings do exist for a reason. We want to do everything in our power to ensure animals don't end up needing a home again, and of course, matching matters — if a cat loves other cats, we want to find them a home with a companion. We're not saying to ignore the animal's needs.

But there's a difference between thoughtful matching and gatekeeping. And when individual volunteers are making judgment calls on applications, how can we be sure there's no bias? The answer is: we can't.

Ask yourself this: does your strict adoption policy stop someone from needing to surrender their pet because of a family crisis like domestic violence? Does it prevent them from being made redundant and having their circumstances change overnight? Does it mean this person doesn't deserve to love an animal?

Life is unpredictable. Circumstances change. And we know that when people are denied an adoption, they're very likely to get an animal anyway — just not from a rescue. So by denying adoptions based on someone's home, their income, or the way they present — who are we really disadvantaging?

Inclusive adoption policies save more lives.

What Does the Science Actually Say?

For the first time, we have robust scientific research examining adoption and rehoming practices, thanks to a landmark study published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science (Griffin, John, Pike & Mills, 2020). The findings are eye-opening.

Most screening criteria aren't backed by evidence

The study analysed 37 characteristics that organisations considered "most important" when screening potential adopters. Scientific evidence was found to support only 8 of them. The vast majority of reasons shelters reject applicants are based on personal opinion or organisational habit — not research.

Strict pass/fail screening may cause more harm than good

The researchers conclude that organisations should consider relaxing their screening criteria and redirecting resources toward preparing owners for the realities of pet ownership and supporting them after adoption.

Common barriers — like housing type — are poorly justified

Nearly half of the "most important" screening factors (45.95%) related to accommodation — things like having a garden, fence height, or flooring type. Yet the literature does not generally support the emphasis placed on these factors. Requirements like "must have a garden" or rejections over laminate flooring have no scientific basis, and disproportionately exclude renters and those in apartments.

Screening creates social justice inequities

The study explicitly flags that certain screening criteria — such as garden access, time at home, and financial means — may be associated with particular racial or socioeconomic groups. This means bias isn't just possible in adoption screening; it may be baked in.

It's unmet expectations — not demographics — that drive relinquishment

Here's the finding that should change everything: research shows that owners who found caring for a dog to be more work than expected had a nearly tenfold increased risk of relinquishing their pet. Not their income. Not their housing. Their preparedness.

This points to one clear, evidence-based intervention: education and support, not gatekeeping.

Conversation-based adoption works just as well

One study found that the quality of care and level of attachment between adopters and their pets did not substantially differ between a conversation-based approach and a traditional policy-based screening process. A warm, informative conversation is just as effective — and far less alienating.

So, What Should We Be Doing Instead?

The research is clear: the energy that shelters pour into screening would be better spent on preparation and post-adoption support. Inclusive programs that focus on matching and equipping adopters — rather than eliminating them — lead to better outcomes for animals and people alike.

That looks like:

• Honest, open conversations about what pet ownership really involves

• Setting realistic expectations around time, cost, and behaviour

• Ongoing support after the adoption is finalised

• Matching based on an animal's actual needs, not assumptions about people

The goal has always been to give animals the best possible lives. The science now tells us that the path to that goal runs through inclusion, not exclusion.

References: Griffin KE, John E, Pike T and Mills DS (2020). Can This Dog Be Rehomed to You? A Qualitative Analysis and Assessment of the Scientific Quality of the Potential Adopter Screening Policies and Procedures of Rehoming Organisations. Front. Vet. Sci. 7:617525.