Is the statement at the bottom of the article new or did the earlier posters simply miss it?
... One of Best Friends’ recommendations for due diligence within the adoption process was to focus on the shelter’s existing system, Chameleon, which pulls information related to animal welfare cases. This includes animal abuse and animal cruelty cases. Checking MyCase was discouraged, as its use was problematic and could lead to biased, inequitable vetting of potential adoptees.
This story does not have enough detail, so I looked for more.
First, I looked up Best Friends and they are firmly no-kill to the exclusion of all else. I am guessing the 'Chameleon' referenced is this CMS, but I could be wrong. If that is the software, it looks like there is a way for people to add notes about specific animals, but it isn't clear if you can enter notes about specific people. It certainly doesn't look like it has a way of automatically checking police records for criminal records. It does suggest you can enter these types of 'field' data:
- Calls for service
- Citations
- Bite reporting
- Field staff dispatching
- Shift control and tracking
- Laptop implementation
- Case photos
I'm guessing MyCase is this free Indiana-specific portal.
Now: if they aren't talking about the free MyCase link I found, then perhaps they are using software that charges the Animal Shelter for each search. I can see getting fired for incurring costs that aren't in the budget. Alternately, perhaps 'Best Friends' is giving them funding based on the shelter NOT rejecting any adopter ever for any reason -- or at least thinking that is a condition based on this statement from the Best Friends 'who we are' page:
We’re making sure that everyone has the same access to loving pets and that every adoptable pet has access to the comfort of a foster home instead of a kennel in a shelter.
-- note that the above is meant to foster diversity and its links to their diversity page (which seems focused on income disparity), but that quoted bit COULD be read to mean 'everyone gets a pet, no matter what'.
I would think it incumbent on all employees to create notes/warnings about known abusers and have that be a flag if they come back to adopt, but I do see a case for allowing people to re-adopt an animal they voluntarily gave to the shelter because they had gone through a patch where they couldn't afford to feed it, but now they can. Others might argue that this is abuse or that the owners don't deserve a pet, but it is clear that Best Friends thinks that refusing such people is discriminatory.
That doesn't mean that the particular abuse getting uncovered with MyCase was simply surrendering a pet until people got on their feet. Mostly, it just feels like there's a bunch of stuff going on that no one reported.