Co-Response

Blount County has the opportunity to pioneer a Co-Responder Team (CRT) approach to animal hoarding cases for the benefit of the residents and animals, the responders, the shelter, and county resources.

In an article posted by the FBI, Captain Ernest Bille, M.P.A., M.P.S., explains that “in a co-response model, a police officer responds alongside a mental health clinician or service provider,” concluding that:

“Co-response models can help communities interact with some of their most vulnerable people. Since law enforcement is already the first point of contact for these challenges, employing a co-response model will benefit police, the person in crisis, and, ultimately, the community.”

Advantages of a Co-Responder Team

Strategic pairing of animal control and behavioral health specialists offers potential for:

• Improved outcomes for people and animals through ground-floor collaboration between animal control and human resources in which no one falls between the cracks; the use of civil treatment and criminal justice systems is tailored to the individual and the situation; and when appropriate, cases are diverted from the criminal justice system into the civil treatment system.
• Minimized recurrence of neglect or abuse through interventions such as counseling, assistance with living conditions, a possession ban or limitation, and frequent surprise visits from law enforcement.
• Reduced impact on the shelter and nonprofit rescue groups because fewer animals are taken in, resulting in a greater percentage of animals rehomed rather than killed due to space constraints.
• Savings to the County, since fewer animals seized or surrendered means lower costs for vetting, documentation of animals as evidence, sheltering, sterilization, and prosecution. Additional funding may be available through grants.
• Necessary support for an Animal Control Officer who is untrained in mental health and already faces a formidable challenge in assisting the animals in collecting, hoarding, or related situations.
• Setting an example of an innovative, efficient, and effective way to address a widespread and growing problem. While Co-Response is growing among law enforcement, it appears that an application specifically to animal situations would break new ground.

Why an Innovative Approach is Critical

Situations involving large numbers of animals and mental illness are the most significant animal protection issue nationally, are becoming more frequent nationally and locally, and are a severe impact on an already struggling county animal shelter.

To tackle the most significant animal issue: “In terms of the number of animals affected and the degree and duration of their suffering, hoarding is the number one animal cruelty crisis facing companion animals in communities throughout the country,” per the Animal Legal Defense Fund, which estimates that up to 250,000 animals per year are victims of hoarding. Wherever there are animal victims, there are nearly always human victims as well, such as a self-neglecting caretaker and children or dependent adults living in often unfit conditions.

To reverse a troubling trend, including in Blount County: Such situations are thought to be on the rise, including specifically in Blount County, where over 100 dogs were recovered from hoarding or collector situations in a two month span (mid-Feb. to mid-Apr. 2025). Recurrence by the same offenders suggests that incomplete handling of violations in previous years has led Blount County to experience the near-100% recidivism rate for cases that lack a long-term plan and support for the hoarder.

To keep animals out of a pound which is, increasingly, a threat to their lives: During the three years of available data, the Animal Adoption Center of Blount County’s live release rate has declined from 90% in 2022 to 75% in 2024, meaning that one out four pets was killed at the ‘shelter.’ The vast majority were attributed to insufficient space (e.g., not euthanasia due to irremediable health issues). This already poor outcome can be expected to exponentially worsen if year-over-year intake rates, which rose 20% from 2022 to 2024 alone, continue to rapidly increase.

Sample Scenarios

DHR + AC Co-Response may be warranted once or twice a month, upon reports to either agency (or the animal shelter) of situations involving unusual numbers of animals and potential mental illness and/or adults or children in need of assistance.

Upon arrival, the Co-Responders work collaboratively and individually to evaluate and create a multifaceted plan:

• Scenario 1: A retired couple is living in noxious levels of ammonia and without electricity. Some 70 dogs are found with matted fur and open wounds, many in cages, others loose inside and outside of the house, and bodies wrapped in towels. The floor is covered with feces and hoarded belongings. The owners rant about the adult daughter who they suspect reported them, while declaring their love for the dogs, sincerely insisting that all is fine with the animals and the living conditions, and crying out at the suggestion that the animals must be removed. While the animal control officer navigates the legal considerations for seizing the animals and coordinates logistics with the shelter director, the clinician de-escalates and evaluates the issues at play and the intervention necessary for the human residents. She assures the residents that they are not alone and that people care and are there to help, and advises the officer that imprisonment or fines would be ineffective. With that information, the officer can limit his evidence documentation; there is no need to secure a count for every animal since the only court-related need is a possession ban. Thus, the officer charges the two owners with misdemeanor cruelty under the Pet Protection Act, which ensures that the dogs are held in the animal shelter only briefly prior to rehoming following a disposition hearing.
• Scenario 2: A woman has contacted the shelter for help. Although she had been able to care for the stray cats around her home and the dogs she took in after her uncle’s passing, the situation became overwhelming when she lost her job. She had cancelled sterilization appointments when she had no way to pay, and with three new litters, both she and the animals now lack sufficient food. She is grateful and apologetic to the responders. The responders connect the woman with food pantry resources, assistance with pet food, and guide her to apply for food stamps. The mothers with litters are placed in foster homes, others can be immediately sterilized and offered for adoption or taken in by rescue organizations. The now-sterilized dogs and two of the cats are returned to the woman. It is determined that the animals are in good health and recurrence is not a concern; no criminal charges are necessary.
• Scenario 3: Responders arrive at a house where multiple emaciated dogs are chained in the yard, one of whom has died while still chained in a repeat of a situation two years ago. The man’s comments indicate his view of the dogs as his property to do with as he sees fit. It is determined that the causative factor is his disregard for the basic welfare of his animals, not any lack of resource or mental illness. The dogs are removed; the man is charged and arrested. A judge orders a possession ban, restitution to cover the county’s sheltering and vetting expense, imprisonment, and fines.

In these scenarios, evaluation and planning for human and animal concerns is done by a person trained and experienced in that field. Since the referral to human resources or animal control is built in, neither human nor animal can be left behind due to an incomplete response. Due to the thorough response and the attention of all necessary agencies, recurrence is greatly minimized or eliminated, demonstrating meaningful assistance and quality-of-life improvements as well as a significant reduction of animals brought to the shelter and rescues. As shelter intake decreases, positive outcomes increase for shelter animals. With the guidance of DHR, charges can be avoided or limited in some cases, resulting in fewer demands on animal control and reducing county expenses for prosecution and imprisonment in situations where there would be no benefit. As word spreads, the program is viewed as a model of how to efficiently and effectively address the most significant animal cruelty crisis while also helping the people involved, reducing stresses on the responders, and lowering costs for the community.