August 3, 2008Comments are closed.attitude, shelter procedure
When we’re been swindled in the past, we can become desperate to protect ourselves in the future. The loss of control that comes from being unable to trust our instincts leaves us scrambling and unsure and we come up with solutions based on quietening these out of control feelings, rather than sensible policies.
Think, someone who’s been mugged becoming housebound. Or a shop keeper so concerned with shop lifters that they start treated genuine customers like criminals.
As usual, Seth Godin puts it eloquently
The best way to keep your bank from getting robbed is to not open a bank.
Sometimes, in our zeal to avoid loss at all costs, we focus too hard on the false positives (that guy might be a robber) and not enough on the false negatives (we just turned away a good prospect).
Working in rescue and dealing with both good and bad people daily, we can find ourselves paralyzed by this lack of control; suddenly instead of embracing our community we’re mistrustful. We fear our public.
Many bad decisions have been made while in the throws of fear of the public. Arbitrary rules in adoptions, restrictions on volunteer contributions and now, a brand new bad idea – making our foster carers pay a pet deposit.
Like the bank who stays closed rather than risk being held up, asking foster carers to pay treats good people like criminals and puts an impediment between you and the public trying to invest in you.
The easiest way to take the emotion out of policy making is to do a risk assessment. This requires an honest appraisal of the existing risk and then an equally honest look at the cost of implementing the new policy. Often when both sides are given an appropriate value, the picture becomes much clearer.
Foster carers should be screened individuals suitable for pet ownership. If you wouldn’t adopt to them, it’s natural that you wouldn’t foster to them and vice versa. So foster carers are suitable owners.
So far the risk = very small
If your foster carer has given you all their details and you’ve seen their drivers licence, checked reference etc, then you have a pretty good idea of who they are. At the very least you will know where to send the police should the situation turn out badly.
The risk = still very small
You’ve invested in your pet, done all their vet work and put together some food and accessories. Lets say all these things added together equal $500. Some pets more, some less.
Risk = $500
So in total the risk to the welfare of the pet is minimal and the financial risk to the group is around $500.
Now lets look at the risk of bringing in the policy of a $100 deposit for all future foster carers.
Risk = + $100
The risk of offending people by treating them as dishonest
= less goodwill
The risk that anyone without a spare $100 will be put off fostering
= less foster carers
The risk of the loss of potential Fan Club members
= less donations, volunteer support and investment
The risk of negative discussion about you
= less positive transfer of your message
So in total the risk to the pet is still minimal and the financial risk is around $400. But now you have a whole other section of risk which is risk to the relationship between you and your community.
This new deposit is done out of fear. Not good risk management.
Even if people have stolen from you in the past, you must recognise that fear of the public is driving policies like this and will cost you much, much more in the long run. There is no such thing as ‘risk free’ – some risk is part of the deal of any interaction with the public, but the payoff in doing so is huge.
Punishing someone that you’ve only just met, for the misdeeds of someone you’ve dealt with in the past is quick way to have them turn against you. Don’t let fear drive your policies.
